Texas “Gay Marriage” Court Update: “Gay Parenting” Social Science Data Denied
Judge Garcia Affirms That Decision Will Be Based on Law, SCOTUS
San Antonio, TX, February 26, 2014 –Late yesterday, Judge Orlando Garcia again denied a request by Texas Values to file a legal brief with the San Antonio federal court in a case where homosexual advocates seek to force gay marriage on Texas. Texas Values’ previous effort to file its amicus brief in early January of this year with the court was denied as Judge Orlando Garcia claimed that Texas Values brief amounted to “attempts to present ‘social science’ which will not be useful for the Court in making a legal determination of the constitutional issues raised in this case.”
However, it was clear that in the hearing in Judge Garcia’s courtroom on February 12th that homosexual advocates’ (Plaintiffs) were mainly citing their flawed social science evidence to support their efforts to redefine marriage in Texas, not legal precedent. This continued focus on social science by homosexual advocates compelled Texas Values to refile its legal brief, which sets the record straight about the social science data related to gay parenting and traditional parenting.
In yesterday’s order signed by Judge Garcia, he stated that his decision:
“will be based on law and United States Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, Defendants have adequately briefed the legal issues in the underlying action.”
Jonathan Saenz, president and attorney for Texas Values, released the following statement in response to Judge Garcia’s order:
“With this denial the Court has essentially assured Texas Values, and the people of Texas, that it will base its decision on the law and not on the flawed social science evidence presented by the Plaintiffs in this case. Because their evidence is flawed and unreliable, we are pleased that the court considers it irrelevant and that it will not be considered. The law and court precedent are clear that Texas marriage laws should be upheld without question.”
Texas Values’ had attempted to refile its amicus brief to set the record straight on the clear and long standing findings of the social science community. The brief points out that “the studies purportedly showing no difference are flawed in numerous respects as was the finding of the Eleventh Circuit in Lofton v. Secty of Children Services, 358 F.3d 804, 825 (11th Cir. 2004). Further, the brief shows that longstanding research supports the idea that raising children in a stable home with their own biological mother and father is the ideal and most beneficial environment for children. This is in large part because of the unique roles that each gender brings to childrearing.”
Read the Order here.
Read the Brief here.