Blog

The Amicus Brief which makes the argument for why – with thanks to Howard University, Prof. Aderson Francois and his team and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Ayesha N. Khan, Legal Director and her team.

Ayesha kahn, Americans United for Separation of Church and State

The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage (NOM) says in its talking points against marriage equality that if one of its supporters is asked “ Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage,” then the answer should be: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Laughable is it not? – and more so in the face of the truth and legal argument put forth by Howard University and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a their Amicus Brief to SCOTUS on behalf of equality for all:

Taken Directly from the Amicus brief in the Prop 8 case of KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, on Appeal from the United States District Court Northern District of California No. 09-CV-2292-VRW The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, this argument preempts the notion that we find all too often thrown at us, including in the talking points fed to anti-equality proponents by NOM.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC and AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT

STATEMENT OF INTEREST:

As one of the oldest among historically black colleges and universities, Howard University School of Law has long placed the defense of human rights, equality and dignity at the heart of its educational practice. Today, this Court faces the question of whether marriage should be equally available to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples. In seeking to answer the question, the Court will inevitably confront—directly or indirectly—the argument that the struggle for equal rights for same-sex couples does not constitutionally or morally equate with the fight against racial subordination. Amicus curiae respectfully submits this brief as a corrective to the flawed distinction too often drawn between equal rights for racial minorities and equal rights for all human beings.1

Americans United is a national, nonsectarian public-interest organization based in Washington, D.C., with a twofold mission: To advance free-exercise rights of individuals and religious communities to worship as they see fit; and to preserve the separation of church and state as a vital component of democratic government. Americans United has over 120,000 members and supporters. Since its founding in 1947, Americans United has participated as a party, counsel, or amicus curiae in many of the leading church-state cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, this Court, and other federal and state courts nationwide.

THE ARGUMENT SUMMARY:

Marriage is a symbol of civil freedom, a marker of social equality, a badge of full citizenship, and a social resource of irreplaceable value. Yet this fundamental expression of human dignity has also been misused as a political sieve for separating individuals into a preferred class, to which society grants a broad complement of legal rights and privileges, and a lesser class, to which it accords less than a full measure of equality. Such was the case when slaves prior to Reconstruction and interracial couples in the days of segregation were denied full marriage equality. Today, while there is no longer any serious claim that marriage rights should be denied on the basis of race, opponents of marriage equality have attacked same-sex couples, using precisely the same flawed arguments that once were used to justify racial slavery and apartheid. We are now long past the time when anyone would seriously claim that race-based marriage equality threatens the moral fabric of our civilization, is contrary to nature, or is harmful to children. Therefore, the onus should be on opponents of marriage equality to demonstrate how arguments that time and experience have so thoroughly rejected in the context of race should now be dug up, dusted off, and given any consideration, much less credibility, in the context of marriage for same-sex couples.

READ THE BRIEF HERE:

 

amicus32howard(1)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.


three + 7 =