Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / courts / State argues that gay marriage will lead to fewer straight marriages

State argues that gay marriage will lead to fewer straight marriages

same-sex-gay-marriage-620Attorneys for the state are warning a federal judge that fewer “straight” couples will marry and existing marriages will become less stable if he allows gays to wed.

In a last-ditch effort to keep Arizona’s ban on gay marriage from being voided, the new legal filing claims state recognition of same-sex relationships would send the message that that marriage exists “primarily for the state to approve romantic bonds” instead of to facilitate “sexual conduct of the type that creates children.” Lead attorney Byron Babione of the Christian-based Alliance Defending Freedom, allowed by Attorney General Tom Horne to represent the state, said that would convey the message that “an emotional connection is the defining characteristic of marriage.”

“But if romantic bonds become the ultimate determinant of marriage, no logical grounds would reinforce marriage-stabilizing norms like sexual exclusivity, permanence, and monogamy,” Babione write in legal pleadings to Judge John Sedwick. “So, as society fails to live in conformity with these norms, marriages on the whole are likely to become more unstable.”

Babione also says undermining the link between marriage and procreation means “the social expectation and pressure to marry for man-woman couples having or raising children would likely decrease further.”

“These developments, over time, would lodge in the public mind the idea that marriage is merely an option (rather than a social expectation) for man-woman couples raising children,” he wrote.

But attorney Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund said in Massachusetts, where same-sex couples have been able to marry for a decade, there is “zero evidence” there has been any effect on the habits of heterosexual couples.

“It’s a fiction, it’s a fantasy, it came out of somebody’s anxious imagination,” Pizer said.

The filing comes as Sedwick is preparing to rule on challenges to Arizona law and a voter-approved state constitutional amendment which defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Plaintiffs include Arizonans who want to wed, couples wed in other states whose relationship is not legally acknowledged here, and survivors of same-sex relationships who want their union recognized.

Separately, Babione also is effectively trying to void a death certificate that Sedwick ordered the state to issue on Sept. 12 that recognized Fred McQuire as the surviving spouse of George Martinez.

In that order, Sedwick said McQuire would suffer irreparable harm if his marriage in California was not recognized after Martinez died in Arizona. State health officials issued the death certificate the same day.

But Sedwick’s action came in the form of a temporary restraining order which, under federal court rules, is good for only 14 days.

Pizer said what’s needed is a permanent order requiring Arizona to honor the death certificate, a move that also paves the way for McQuire to attempt to get federal benefits as a surviving spouse. If that order expires, she said, the death certificate McQuire possesses becomes little more than a piece of paper.

The bigger battle is over whether Arizona’s refusal to legally recognize same-sex weddings violates constitutional equal protection rights.

Attorneys for the state appear on the defensive, especially after Sedwick, ruling in McQuire’s request, wrote it is “probable” there is a conflict between Arizona law and the U.S. Constitution “so that Arizona will be required to permit same-sex marriages.”

Babione and his legal team already have argued that gay marriages cannot be granted the same status as heterosexual unions because of biology. They said the prime purpose of marriage is to produce children who are related to both parents and that gays, by definition, cannot do that.

The latest filing presents new arguments in hopes of convincing Sedwick he should leave the Arizona restrictions untouched.

That includes how traditional marriage would be undermined. But here, too, Babione raises the issue of biology, saying allowing same-sex weddings “would undermine the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation.”

“That change would thus promote the mistaken view that civil marriage has little to do with procreation,” Babione wrote, saying “the social connection between marriage and procreation would wane over time.”

“As fewer man-woman couples marry and as more of their relationships end prematurely, the already significant social costs associated with unwed childbearing and divorce would further increase,” he said.

Babione told Sedwick there are examples of where changes in marriage laws have had detrimental effects, saying no-fault divorce laws increased divorce rates.

“Arizonans may reasonably fear that redefining marriage would lead to similar adverse social trends,” he said.

But Pizer said fears that some change will make society less stable “is never an answer to a request for equal treatment under the law.”

“Everyone is entitled to basic rights,” she said. Pizer compared the arguments to fears that allowing some people to go to the movies might result in others opting not to go.


  1. I am just astounded. Rarely have I heard so much claptrap coming from a supposedly intelligent person. This is why I could never be an attorney. I’d to come up with some completely baseless theory and argue that theory just to get my way. And, I’d have to act like I really believe what I’m saying.

    Babione’s arguments are so preposterous they don’t even deserve comment.

  2. In 2004, the Arizona State legislature, in its infinite wisdom, passed a law that said it didn’t have to recognize marriages from other states between first cousins, opening the door for people to marry their first cousin in another state and then marry again in Arizona, completely skirting Bigamy laws. How was that supportive of families and child-rearing?

  3. If anything, *not* allowing gay couples to marry will lead to fewer straight marriages, because it forces them to set the example that marriage is unnecessary.

  4. “But if romantic bonds become the ultimate determinant of marriage, no logical grounds would reinforce marriage-stabilizing norms like sexual exclusivity, permanence, and monogamy,”

    I’m pretty sure that ship sailed long before the first same-sex marriage was legalized.

  5. Marriage has never had anything to do with procreation, which is why court after court has thrown out this defense. In fact, 40% of heterosexuals choose never to have children, yet they’re allowed to marry.

  6. “to facilitate sexual conduct of the type that creates children.”

    So, let me get this right: Arizona currently “facilitates” what a married man and woman do in their bedroom?! Arizona has any couple present a medical exam report and test results of fertility? Arizona offers temporary marriage licenses that are renewed only if the couple produce children and can prove they are the parents?

    No couple in Arizona who is not married is allowed to “create children?!”

    This is going to be laughed out of any court, anywhere.

  7. Gay marriage supporters appear to the lowest common denominator of people. Unless any of you understand this then most of you gay marriage supporters don’t have children. At age 5-9 when children are being brain washed about the wonders of the gay lifestyle children don’t even understand sexuality. When you brain wash a child that is 5-9 into thinking that they might be gay. What does a kid know that means? You don’t want your children upon this movement that is brain washing children. Say for example you take a kid that is 10 or 11 and might be slightly feminine. He doesn’t like to run around a football field, or play baseball, he likes more sensitive things in his life. Does that mean he’s gay? No it doesn’t mean hes gay at all. You take a wonderful person like this with a great genetic possibility, and you force this person into loneliness for the rest of his life. The gay agenda is destructive because it denies the human gene pool future DNA. one of the reasons why America is suffering right now is that, so many people are gay have never had any children. You heard me. Some of the most wonderful genetic material created by heterosexual marriages or heterosexual relationships is going to waste because of the forcing of the gay agenda. In the past if people usually got married due to social pressures and they would practice their activities on the side. But because of the set and frame of our society where the criminal is more liked then the cop, where the killer is more liked then the priest. People think that being gay is superior then the heterosexual lifestyle and it is a more advanced way to life. So many thousands of people are openly practicing the gay lifestyle and have condemned themselves into not having children, are cutting off humanity in so many ways. By not allowing their DNA from the human pool, have so denied humanity. It is a tragic loss to our society, and for that reason alone I would discourage homosexual marriage, and I made my point in a positive way. One of my favorite books is called the Importance of Living by Lin Yutang. Let me quote a passage from that book. “It’s a well known fact that Chinese society, and Chinese life are organized by the basis of the family system. This system determines and colors the entire Chinese pattern of life, what’s came the family ideal of life? With it’s tremendous emphasis on the husband wife relationship as the foundation of all human relationships. Annual visits to ancestral graves, ancestral worship, and the institution of the ancestral hall. God took a handful of mud molded it into human shape, and breathed into it’s nostrils a breathe and there was Adam. But Adam began to crack and fall into pieces. So he took some water and molded the clay, and this water that entered into Adam’s being Eve was created (Lin Yutang)”. And only having Eve in his life Adam’s life was complete. A great symbolism of this is woman is water, and man is clay. And water permutes and molds the clay, and the clay holds the water and gives is substance. In which water moves and lives and has it’s full being. We need to celebrate the traditional family, children, and ancestors. It is tied to our political structure. Our political structure has also evolved into something that is something that it was never met to become in this country. The system that Obama is trying to impose on us it is not a American system. It is not limited to Obama it was started a long time ago in this country starting with the establishment of the Communist party. This system was started in 1849 with the establishment of the Communist Mannifesto by Karl Marx. When have you heard this President or the last President the sacred bond of the family? Obama is a married man to a beautiful woman called Michelle. He has two beautiful children. Why doesn’t Obama ever discuss the beauties of marriage? Especially for the black community. Why doesn’t he talk about the beauty of the traditional family? Here is my main point. that I would like to make of all of this. When you make something like gay marriage to accessible, you remove to many people from the normal track of marriage and family. When I grew up as a kid you had to get married and you had to have children. That’s how society and humanity goes forward if they are to survive and being able to reproduce their DNA to the next generation. The societal pressures must be upon the children to get married and have children or we are dead as a people

    No I am speaking the relative truth about the gay agenda and you may not like it but I will continue to fight to stop the legalization of gay marriage. It is truly disgusting and always will be and vile. Men do not marry men and woman do not marry woman. The gay and ******* people compare marriage equality to the civil rights movement in the 1960’s and let me tell you there is no comparison. Comparing the marriage equality horror to the civil rights movement is a insult to the black community. You have no idea how big of a insult it is to black ministers. The civil rights movement should been happened much sooner then 1964. And I am a proud supporter of Dr. King’s agenda. But the gay agenda is a whole other animal. The biggest problem is people believe that homosexuality is a more productive way to live. Let me ask you all something. Why is it traditional Judaism, Buddism, Christianity, Islam, reject the concept of homosexual marriage? Pretty simple they accept that marriage has been and always ways between a man and a woman. Are they all homophobic. So all of you must be all members of a new religion. All of you are members of a new cult and your religion is built around homosexuality. You call us haters because we disagree with your beliefs on marriage. Most of you supporters of gay marriage have tried to twisted your new religion into what it is not. Let me ask you something? How do two woman have a child? And most of you would say that the woman is inseminated with a sperm cell. But where did that ***** come from? Pretty simple it came from a man who is the father and who cares about the child. So a sperm bank is not a father? A heterosexual couple is apart of the natural order, a homosexual marriage is a perversion of the natural order according to everyone of the world’s religions.

    Do any of you know what marriage is a institution is designed to do? And most people would often say to create a bond between a man and a woman so that they reproduce their DNA into their offspring so that humanity can continue as a whole everywhere. So we don’t die off as a human race. We aren’t talking about people who make a commitment to marriage in order to raise children that is the fundamental brick of civilization called the family. So this is about the family being married. Homosexual marriage doesn’t effect heterosexual marriage directly. But what it does is it degrades a weakened time honored institution which is heterosexual marriage. It degrades what real marriage, it’s destructive effects may not be 100% apparent but the punitive effect of attack heterosexual marriage is unavoidable. I come from the Christian style of thinking about the time honored institution of marriage. Let me make a interesting point in this whole argument. No man who is gay 5,000 to 6000 years ago would have wanted to be married. And why is it just now gays want their equal rights? Why didn’t they want their rights 5,000 or so years ago? Because they knew that homosexual marriage isn’t real marriage. Let me ask all of you why would a man want to marry another man? Tell me reason for that except to mock marriage itself. That is because most of the gay marriage supporters are all young people who have been brainwashed by the socialist democrats into thinking that homosexual marriage is better then heterosexual marriage. Were any of you raised in any religious beliefs? If you say that you were a catholic for example. Should Roman Catholicism be illegal by a judge because it violates the constitutional rights of homosexuals? Then should we ban Judaism because it discriminates against gays? Or why not Christianity? So should we arrest rabbis, buddist temples closed down, or whatever else. The religions all teach that marriage is between a man and a woman. So therefore these religions are teaching discriminatory policies. So marriage between a man and a frog is fine? Have any of you actually read the bible? The bible makes it so clear of what marriage is. All of you are begging the question. The issue is about a corrupt judge of nullifying the votes of people against gay marriage. Do you think a judge in Pennsylvania has the right to determine whether or not individuals are diseased before they get married or not? So you could see some state involvement in a religious precept of marriage. There all of you nullified your original arguments. The state has a distinct obligation to enforce laws which uphold the society itself. And the brick of all civilization is the family. Not to undermine that brick of civilization. That is why they had test for diseases during my time growing up. Pretty simple the gay agenda is destructive and none of you actually can give me valid points that show homosexual marriage is better then heterosexual marriage.

  8. Well when you got nothing, absurd arguments will have to do.

  9. Wow, what a lame and nonsensical argument.

    I wonder how the state attorneys can make those claims with a straight face.

  10. Wow…. Mr. Dobbles puts forth a bunch of gobble-de-gook without offering much substance nor does he offer any scientific evidence to support his claims.

    Virtually all of the gay and ******* people I’ve known knew long before puberty what their sexual orientation is, even if they didn’t know all the words, and it had nothing to do with actual sex practice — just their sense of attractions to one or the other gender. Sexual orientation is not taught, nor is it something you can recruit kids into. And hardly any gay or ******* parents raising children ends up having gay or ******* children (unless, of course, they adopt older teenagers who have been kicked out of their own homes for being gay, but that’s a whole different issue).

    Marriage is not a religious institution, but a social institution, and in no case has any court affirmed the position that marriage is about children. Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage. And, as our national statistics show, procreation happens quite readily without any marriage at all. They are simply two different issues.

    Mr. Dobbles can define his own marriage any way he chooses, but he must permit others that same liberty to live on their own terms. For him to work so hard to deny marriage equality is extremely selfish on his part.

  11. and I am curious as to why this site automatically censors the commonly used L-word for female homosexuals.

  12. Going to bat on this issue is done to appease and motivate select supporters and is timed to turn out this base of support. Win or lose they win without spending scarce campaign funds but with tax dollars that have no limits. You just spend less on education or roads.

  13. As a lifelong gay American, let me attempt to respond to these absurd arguments put forth by the Alliance Defending Freedom. As a tax paying citizen, i am not required to follow any religion or biblical pronouncements. Having paid 100% of my taxes, I expect no less than 100% of my rights. Just whose “freedom” is being defended?

  14. Mr. Dobbles, in my opinion, is basing his argument on the bias of his religion and that is fine. He is entitled to his bias opinion. His argument, however, is completely invalid. People marry for love as is the case for those who marry without procreation. As far as the human race dying out, we are already overpopulating the Earth, so how is that a valid argument? China and the value of family? Well China has a one child per family rule and the amount of orphans and/or abortions occurring in China is astounding. As for AI, most gay couples adopt those children who have been abandoned by their heterosexual parents. Religion is a social construct. At least the gay agenda is not used to justify such acts as slavery, the dessimation of the Native American population, and currently, the functionalist agenda. I am the girlfriend of a trans woman and we have biological children together (out of wedlock), yet we can’t marry now because she is legally a woman? That is bs. As far as the black community, unless you are black, you can not speak for it. I am part of the black community and I believe that couples of the same sex should be able to wed just like a heterosexual couple. Why? Because it helps to control the population, decrease the abortion rate, give orphans a permanent home, and provides equal rights to all citizens. The majority of society, including the hypocritical religious institutions, do not conform to the “norms” of our society. So maybe you should rethink your illogical justifications for your religious agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

vote, voters, elections, Senate bill, ballots, Hoffman, Hobbs, Lake

Senators vote to require new elections when voters claim disenfranchisement (access required)

State senators voted Tuesday to require new elections any time a certain number of voters claim they were "disenfranchised.''