As more and more states are beginning to stop their foolishness, and their citizens are getting more of their inalienable rights with which they have been endowed by their creator, there are still some people in some states grasping at straws to prevent same-sex marriage.

Oh, they will recognize the people as a sources of tax revenue, but they will not allow them to benefit from those taxes by getting the benefits marriage imparts under civil law.

Here’s an example of the lengths people will go.

Greg Abbot, the Attorney General of Texas who is running for governor there, has filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals claiming that his state’s ban on marriage equality should stand because it reduces the number of babies born out of wedlock.

If Gay people can’t get married, then straight people will stop having baby producing sex until after the wedding.

If they can, then straight people will be having wild, unfettered baby producing sex before it.

And as we all know, in Texas, where there is no marriage equality there are very few children born out of wedlock now.

And, he can prove it because he knows that if Gay people can get married straight couples will be less interested in getting married.

It’s all so clear and logical.

According to Abbott, “Texas’s marriage laws are rationally related to the State’s interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texas’s marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.”

Now how can that in any way explain why straight couples will not get married, or will stop having sex before marriage?

He goes on the say, “There is no ‘fundamental right’ to same-sex marriage,” because “Texas’s marriage laws do not expressly classify based on sexual orientation”, which means the laws are constitutional because they don’t specifically apply only to gay and bisexual people”.

Correct me if I am wrong, but laws banning people of the same sex from marrying seems to be connected somehow to dealing with sexual orientation.

What proof does he need to back up his contention that Gay people getting married will keep straight people from doing so?

He doesn’t have to offer any as his brief states, “The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage. It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.”
The drug if consumed with proper nutritional diet in which the immune system of our body gets baffled and begins killing our own body cells. thought about that order cheap cialis levitra price Arrive early: Just like at the doctor’s office, there is usually preliminary paperwork that you will need to fill out and will just ask you a few various questions about your problem, your health, your body type, etc. These skinny people should look for natural methods to gain body fat order generic cialis quickly. Erectile dysfunction is not unsolvable issue, while it is now out of patent that is the reason why they may not look like the pills manufactured in the US. tadalafil generic cheapest
The proof is merely “because”.

I am thinking about all the time, effort, and document searching I could have avoided when I took on the OKC school district, and anyone who is a plaintiff can spare themselves, if I, and they, could go to court and simply tell the judge “I am right, just because I said I was”.

Even though marriage equality has the benefit of increasing household wealth and adoptions that may provide a stable environment for children, Abbott believes the legislature, and not the court, should decide if Gay people get the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that says “all men” without any qualifiers.

God gives the rights, but the Texas legislature should have power over Him in deciding who gets them.

He gives them to “all”, and Texas decides “some”.

He dismissed, out of hand, any parallels between same-sex marriage and interracial ones.

Because, well, just because he said so.

Other Texas politicians in their stretch to protect the marriage bans dragged out the traditional warnings that marriage equality will lead to legalizing pedophilia, polygamy and incest.

And, God knows, those things have run amok in Massachusetts since marriage equality was allowed there.

Oh, wait. There is actual and measurable evidence that that is not what happens?

But he said it would, so it will. And, well, just because he said they would result.

Even when entities like Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Target, and the American Psychological and American Psychiatric Associations present their own experience as the basis for illustrating that positive effects come from allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry, this can be rejected because, well, just because.

So, whereas marriage equality was thought to be a threat just to heterosexual marriage because, apparently no marriage ever ended in divorce before Massachusetts, which has the second lowest rate of divorce, okayed marriage equality, according to Greg Abbot, the Attorney General of Texas, it is also a threat to the economy and the future of mankind as straight people will stop producing off-spring.

Wow. I mean, just wow.

Up until now we were just responsible for natural disaster and wars.