The once-taken-seriously Heritage Foundation filed a 100-page amicus brief as SCOTUS prepares to hear the issue again. In the brief, the Heritage Foundation tells SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage kills 900,000 fetuses. The “logic” behind this mind-numbingly stupid claim?
If “the gays” can legally marry, there will be fewer opposite sex marriages, which means more women pregnant out of wedlock. This, of course, naturally means almost a million abortions over the next generation.
Take a moment to clear your head of the resounding cries of “Huh-what!?” I’ll wait.
If you’re asking yourself how this all works that means you’ve survived Hurricane Idiocy with your brain intact. Said brain has rejected the inane proposition that failing being able to legally marry Brad Pitt, I would most certainly be proposing to Angelina Jolie.
It’s not often I say this, but I feel very, very sorry for the SCOTUS right now. I have to wonder if, in the privacy of chambers, some of them don’t read briefs like this (or, more likely, summaries written by their clerks) and think:
“Are these people for real? Must remind clerks to fill water pitchers with vodka; it’s the only way I’m going to be able to survive this case.”
One of the best responses to Gene Schaerr, the lawyer behind the brief, comes from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post in his Monday column: “The new argument against gay equality: Same-sex marriage kills.” By the way, it should be noted that Schaerr left his cushy firm job to pursue a similar crusade in Utah. It failed. Schaerr is also a former Scalia clerk.
In Milbank’s words, 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.”
Further analyzing Schaerr’s “logic,” Milbank says one of Schaerr’s assumptions is that “an unemployed man who got his girlfriend pregnant in a state that had legalized same-sex marriage would be more likely to conclude that ‘I’m not going to assume these obligations to this woman and this child.'” Of course, it’s just a hop, skip and an aneurysm to get from there to almost a million abortions.
I would love to be in the gallery to hear these arguments. Scalia, who some say is anti-gay, but is actually more focused on the states’ right to determine such issues, must be overjoyed that his former clerk is returning to the nest with such a cogent argument.