Read 5 Of The Dumbest Arguments The Supreme Court Will Hear Against Marriage Equality

Later this month, the Supreme Court is due to hear oral arguments in several cases regarding bans on same-sex marriage at the state level. People for the American Way’s Right Wing Watch managed to sample some of the amicus briefs filed by several groups and individuals who oppose marriage equality. Some of them are, quite possibly, among the dumbest arguments ever made before any court in this country, let alone the Supreme Court. Right Wing Watch flagged five of the worst.

The facade of the Supreme Court Building (courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
The facade of the Supreme Court Building (courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

One brief, filed by Mike Huckabee Policy Solutions, a group that claims to support Huckabee’s policy aims, and the Family Research Institute, argues that homosexuality is a “significant public health risk” due to “heightened early mortality” among LGBT people. Given the “undue financial, emotional, and health” burdens on loved ones and the community, LGBT people are no different from smokers and drug abusers. For that reason, they need “tough love” in the form of continued state-level restrictions on their right to have their relationships recognized legally.

Hmmm–did the people who wrote this brief consider that there is a direct link between suicide among LGBT youths and anti-gay legislation? I believe the phrase “self-fulfilling prophecy” applies here.

The Texas chapter of Eagle Forum–Phyllis Schlafly’s organization–claims that a decision in favor of marriage equality could have a disastrous effect similar to the Dred Scott decision. As we all know, the Taney Court believed it resolved the slavery issue by declaring that Congress had no power to outlaw slavery in federal territories–but actually poured gasoline on the fire.

Texas Eagle Forum claims allowing same-sex marriage would have a similar effect since allowing gays to legally marry “in every corner of the United States” would almost certainly cause “vastly more conflict, along regional lines.” If that doesn’t sound loony enough, Texas Eagle Forum argues that it would weaken “the strongest link that holds our society together”–the Bible.

Robert Oscar Lopez, filing on behalf of several adults raised by LGBT couples, claims that marriage equality would make life harder for kids raised in such relationships. However, the basis for this brief is Mark Regnerus’ infamous 2012 study that supposedly found kids raised by LGBT parents don’t turn out as well as their counterparts in straight couples. That study has been debunked several times over. Just last month, Regnerus’ employers at the University of Texas found his study was so badly flawed it shouldn’t be used to guide policy.

A smorgasbord of right-wing groups including Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Institute on the Constitution, and Public Advocate of the United States, argues that if the Supremes force the states to “‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior,” they could be held responsible for “bring(ing) God’s judgment on the Nation.” Right Wing Watch actually thought this argument was the worst one it’s seen among the amicus briefs.

But believe it or not, another argument they cited sounds far worse in my book. The state of South Carolina argued that if the justices consider the original intent of those who drafted the 14th Amendment, they’d be hard pressed to use it to find a right to same-sex marriage. State attorney general Alan Wilson wrote that the writers of the 14th Amendment insisted that they never intended to overturn laws of the day that stripped women of virtually all of their rights once they got married. For that reason, state laws that defined marriage as being solely between a man of the union should be considered “hands off under the Amendment’s original meaning.”

If that isn’t outrageous enough, the South Carolina solicitor general and a representative from Wilson’s office told Slate that South Carolina has no intention of implementing the sexist laws it referenced in its brief, “though it could if it wanted to.” If you’re a woman in South Carolina and you’re reading this, you have every right to feel insulted.

To the eyes of a reality-based person, it would seem unbelievable that anyone would have the guts to submit such ridiculous arguments before the highest court in the nation. One can only hope that when all is said and done, these arguments are consigned to the same level of infamy as those that were made in favor of continued segregation of our schools.

Darrell is a 30-something graduate of the University of North Carolina who considers himself a journalist of the old school. An attempt to turn him into a member of the religious right in college only succeeded in turning him into the religious right's worst nightmare--a charismatic Christian who is an unapologetic liberal. His desire to stand up for those who have been scared into silence only increased when he survived an abusive three-year marriage. You may know him on Daily Kos as Christian Dem in NC. Follow him on Twitter @DarrellLucus or connect with him on Facebook. Click here to buy Darrell a Mello Yello.