Amicus Tells Supreme Court that Marriage Equality Will Cause 900,000 Abortions

schaerr_gene
So you might remember me saying a few words yesterday about bigots not being the best and brightest. I provided you with some examples as proof of this assertion. There was too much evidence to be all inclusive, but one more piece of evidence demands to be heard.

Attorney Gene Schaerr wrote in the Heritage Foundation’s rag, The Daily Signal, last week that “Forcing States to Recognize Gay Marriage Could Increase the Number of Abortions.”

Wait. Say what?

As Dana Milbank pointed out Monday in an op-ed at The Washington Post, “The logic is about as obvious as if they had alleged that raising the minimum wage would increase the frequency of hurricanes. If anything, you’d think that more same-sex marriages would mean more adoptions.”

You’d think. But this is a conservative we are talking about, writing for those professional liars at the Heritage Foundation, so yes, that’s what he says. What’s more, he’s serious:

On the surface, abortion and same-sex marriage may seem unrelated. However, as explained in an amicus brief of 100 scholars of marriage, filed in the pending Supreme Court marriage cases and summarized here, the two are closely linked in a short and simple causal chain that the Supreme Court would be wise not to set in motion.

Well, this must be some brilliant stroke of logic then, huh? I mean, I cannot wait to hear the reasoning behind this argument.

In a nutshell: A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women. And based on past experience, institutionalizing same-sex marriage poses an enormous risk of reduced opposite-sex marriage rates.

So Schaerr seems to think that gay men, being unable to marry other men, have been marrying women and making babies. But once free to marry other men, they will take themselves out of circulation.

The problem is, being gay is not a “behavior” or “lifestyle” choice, as people like Schaerr insist. Gay men don’t suddenly decide, “Well, since I can’t marry another man, I’ll marry a woman and settle for heterosexual sex.”

Certainly there are gay men in denial – Marcus Bachmann is often cited as one such – but these men are going to remain in denial whatever their marriage rights might be.

Therefore his claim that, “Accordingly, with 1.275 million additional women never getting married, nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying,” is absurd.

I think the Supreme Court might laugh. Well, some of them. Perhaps most of them. Yet Schaerr is proclaiming that, “This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.”

In answer to this, Milbank wrote,

Case closed! Or at least it would be, if Schaerr’s “causal chain” were real. He freely acknowledged that he had no cause-and-effect proof when I asked him about it at Heritage on Monday.

Uh oh. What?

In fact, as Milbank pointed out, “But the national birth rate has been declining for years, from 14.2 per 1,000 people in 2006 to 12.4 in 2013.”

And it turns out Utah already advanced this same argument – and lost.

Nor is there any correlation between same-sex marriage and declining birth rates, as Milbank demonstrates:

The national marriage rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000 in 2012, from 8.0 in 2002, before Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage. The Massachusetts rate dropped from 5.9 in 2002 to 5.5 in 2011, while Connecticut went from 5.7 to 5.5 and Vermont went from 8.6 to 8.3. But Texas and Utah, free of same-sex marriage, dropped from 8.4 to 7.1, and from 10.4 to 8.6, respectively.

Nobody can say Schaerr is not willing to make things up in order to get his way. It’s a case similar to that of the church whose pastor was accused of rape. The attitude of the congregation, which stands behind him, is one of, “Think what you want. We’re going to trust God. We’ve got to answer to nobody but God.”

And it turns out that Schaerr is a religious crusader, writing, when he quit his law firm last year that he was doing so in order to “fulfill what I have come to see as a religious and family duty.”

Gene-Schaerr-Departure-1

Lying for Christ. Some duty. Since Jesus said not an iota of the law should pass away, I’m not certain how that works out with the commandment against bearing false witness.

But hey, people have been committing atrocities for God for many centuries.

These people – people like Schaerr and the others I wrote about yesterday – are not the best and brightest. They’re only the most zealous and unscrupulous, people for whom the end justifies the means.

As Christopher Ingraham put it, writing yesterday at The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, “Schaerr and his co-signers construct a 100-page legal brief on questionable statistical foundations.”

That’s putting it generously.

Even though there is no evidence, and Schaerr knows there is no evidence, he is willing to go on record to claim that marriage equality kills people. It’s no longer simply an “unhealthy lifestyle” that kills its participants, but something that kills innocent fetuses.

Since logic means nothing to the Fox News crowd, this lie ought to appeal to the Republican base. They will gobble it up uncritically and it will become as real as that imaginary ISIL camp just south of the border, down Mexico way.

But it isn’t marriage equality that kills. It is ignorance. The Supreme Court ought to consider all evidence, but this is not evidence. Evidence ought to be fact-based. These are the rantings of a madman.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

36 Replies to “Amicus Tells Supreme Court that Marriage Equality Will Cause 900,000 Abortions”

  1. apropos of nothing and not having enough caffeine to be awake yet…

    my question would be how many divorces do these alleged 100 scholars of marriage have between them?

  2. …”“Think what you want. We’re going to trust God. We’ve got to answer to nobody but God.”

    Isn’t this the mantra of ISL?

    What is most troubling about their “certainty theory” is that it is built around no boundaries for true-believers but, boundaries* around everyone else who doesn’t believe their “certainty” has any fact/truth to it what so ever.

    *Wesson oil rituals (Ted Haggard comes to mind) to keep demons in one area so they can’t escape; Satan like to let loose his demons to run around neighborhoods, like ghost in “Ghost-busters”, and steal true-believers babies! That’s why true-believers need to circle their wagons so that no abortion demon can’t get in…or “the gays”; that’s why they are taking their case to the Supreme Court…ahh, certainty!

  3. “A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and have much higher abortion rates than married women” just means to me that Miss Lindsey Graham better get off his butt and do his civic duty by marrying one of those unmarried women out there who are going to have an abortion.

  4. I had a former “friend” do this brick chip and Wesson oil thing to me. At certain intervals thereafter, she would call me, and,in a sweetly vulturous voice, inquire after my health.

  5. *face palm*

    The idiocy here is so staggering, so insane, so bat shit crazy that I had to face palm.

    It boggles my mind how some of these people reach the conclusions they want.

  6. Let’s see how damaging this would be to current marriages.

    Good morning my beautiful wife, and happy 8th anniversary! Wow, we have another child on the way in a few months! Life is great!

    Horrors, they might allow two people of the same sex to be defined as married for tax and legal purposes!

    Well, it’s been a good run but we’re just going to have to get divorced and you’re going to have to have an abortion. Because, it’s just not right and it’s ruined our marriage FOREVER!!!!!

    (rolleyes)

  7. This argument against same-sex marriage makes no more sense than the argument presented by South Carolina.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/04/09/south_carolina_we_can_discriminate_against_women_so_why_not_gays.html

    Most people can see that these arguments are so flawed they could be a comedy routine.

    However we are talking about SCOTUS here. After their decision for Hobby Lobby I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they took these amicus briefs seriously. They certainly didn’t listen to the hundred of briefs submitted by doctors and other professionals contradicting HL.

    Logic on the part of SCOTUS, i’m afraid, is in very short supply these days.

  8. Dustin, I think the vast majority (if not all) of them hear it from their pastors on Sunday morning. These are the ones perpetrating the fear, hatred and extreme bigotry against gays, pro-choicers and, of course, the President. Hearing about it from their friends doesn’t hold much water; hearing it from their pastor, OTOH, means it came directly from Gawd….

  9. Having married gay couples, actually help the adoption process, since they actually WANT children.

    And what about single mothers? they have been doing the job for a very long time.

    He is just preparing the ground for the future of having multiple wives and concubines (like the saudis) since those poor “single-females w/o-husband” will be left out…

    With friends like these, who needs enemies..

  10. It’s laughable, but so was Hobby Lobby and Citizens United. This SCOTUS has 4 and sometimes 5 very partisan members. It could be a bad outcome. Let’s hope it’s not.

  11. I realize that the attorneys are trying to pull anything out of their ass to make an argument against marriage equality. They succeed in making my brain hurt. There should be a law against intentional stupidity.

  12. “However, as explained in an amicus brief of 100 scholars of marriage, filed in the pending Supreme Court marriage cases and summarized here…”

    Where the hell did he find “100 scholars of marriage”????

  13. Damm – I wish they had to see and read this argument for the first time in open Court. We know that the majority would be unable to keep a straight face and in all likelihood — chuckle, laugh, etc. I say the majority as it would go over the heads of a few — Ye of the stunned and stupid persuasion!!

  14. OH LORDY! Think about the wimmen and the BABIES!!Oh mymymy!!

    Senator Graham, please sir,not in front of the electorate.

  15. He forgot to factor in how many of those 1.2 million women who will not be marrying males because they will be marrying same-sex partners will themselves be marrying same-sex partners, rather than remaining unmarried.

    “F,” Mr. Schaerr.

    And next time, show your work.

  16. If all of these men are going to now marry other men, exactly WHO is getting these unmarried women pregnant? What is wrong with these people????

  17. Freudian Slip?

    These fools are so used to lying to themselves, that the insanity spills over into real life.

    And we’re supposed to take such nimrods seriously?

  18. Don’t you get it, they are advocating for plural marriage to scoop all the unmarried women so they don’t have abortions. It’s in the bible somewhere.

  19. Schaerr is a bald-faced liar. The reason he quit his job at the law firm was so he could make more money working for the Heritage Foundation. Look at Jim DeMint, for instance. When he was in the Senate, he was one of the poorest members in the body, but when he went to the HF, his salary increased to close to $500,000 per year, and this does not include perks. DeMint probably offered Schaerr a very sweet deal, and he couldn’t resist. There was no God or family duty involved in his decision to join the HF. It was the same old GOP/TP monster–greed–that led him to leave the law firm. Anyone who believes otherwise is as bad at logic as he is. He cooked up this BS not because he really believes it, but because he’s got to earn that big paycheck HF pays him some way, even if he has to lie and use faulty logic. I have to give him credit—linking gay marriage and abortion is not only a nutty thing to do, it further cements his far-right credentials. For the HC, he’s a keeper.

  20. Let’s face facts – facts ain’t got nothing to do with what they believe. The facts are there with documentation and the far-right and their overlords just ignore the facts.

    These facts do not conform with their religious beliefs ergo – they don’t believe them. Besides, their followers listen to FOX Newstainment, Rushbo, Hannity and O’Reilly. That’s all the facts they need – and what these people report must be true because it aligns with the far-right social conservatives beliefs.

  21. Reading through the amicus brief the table of authorities is a joke. It looks like the writer just did a search of a law library. Any book or paper with the words family, abortion, marriage, etc. in it was listed.

  22. The brief itself does not list any. The hundred is pure propaganda.

    [Corrected}
    My bad. I finally found the list. It is all professors at far right wing universities. Calling most of them experts on the family is stretching things to the extreme. How is a professor of English an expert on the family?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.