- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
- Sierra Leone doctor fighting Ebola catches disease
- Iraq welcomes Russian fighter jets, helicopter gunships into ISIL fight
- John McCain laments: Obama’s ‘self-pity … is really kind of sad’
- GOP offer to fix VA gives $10 billion in emergency funds
- Paul Ryan offers to repair U.S. economic safety net with a single grant stream
- Kim Jong-un builds bond with Putin: $250M Russia-backed addition to key port opens
- Pope Francis meets Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death
- Detroit porch shooting trial: Suspect says he didn’t know gun was loaded
Lawyers: The purpose of marriage is procreation
Question of the Day
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, lawyers for an Oklahoma clerk said in a new court filing.
The 63-page brief filed Tuesday is the latest volley in a battle between a lesbian couple of 17 years and Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith, who refused to grant them a marriage license in 2009.
Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin subsequently sued to be allowed to marry in their home state, where voters had approved a ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled in Bishop and Baldwin’s favor in January this year, and Smith appealed.
Lawyers for Smith argued that marriage is about furthering “potentially procreative sexual relationships into stable unions” rather than recognizing the love and commitment of two people.
“They (plaintiffs) reduce marriage from an institution that exists to benefit children and society, and relegate it to a mere stamp through which the government approves loving, emotional unions between adult couples,” they said in the brief filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
They further argued that the Supreme Court has found repeatedly that marriage is fundamental to the survival of the human race. In one of the cases cited, Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the court ruled that the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional.
“They say it is only one thing, when it clearly is not,” the two said in the statement. “Marriage is many things to many people, and we believe that it is a right that should (be) granted to all citizens and not a bastion of individual states to discriminate against people within their borders.”
Lawyers for the couple argued in a brief last month that the marriage ban demeans same-sex couples and their children because it sends the message that their relationships are secondary to those built in traditional families.
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for later this month in the Denver appeals court. The same panel will hear a similar appeal out of Utah on April 10.
Tuesday’s brief was the second filed by the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Smith.
Follow Kristi Eaton on Twitter at http://twitter.com/kristieaton .
TWT Video Picks
The subsidies are a hit with patients who don't exist
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Algerian plane diverted due to storms, second aircraft: 116 missing
- Obama's empty tough-talk: Gun prosecutions plummet on his watch
- House panel OKs resolution to sue president for Obamacare delays
- Conservative groups decry Democrats' 'war on women' tactic
- Obama says public not familiar enough with issues
- Evidence shows Russia firing artillery into Ukraine: Pentagon
- Astronaut shares 'saddest photo' from space: Bombs bursting over Israel, Gaza
- Doctor, 2 others shot at Pennsylvania hospital: reports
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq