Defendants in Nevada’s marriage equality case Sevcik v. Sandoval introduce Mark Regnerus study in case
November 26, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
Despite erroneous reporting, there is no oral argument today in Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal’s equal protection challenge to Nevada’s anti-marriage law. However, there are some new issues in the case. The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the sponsors of the anti-marriage ballot initiative in Nevada, has requested to add evidence to their appendix for their motion for summary judgment.
The Coalition has added Mark Regnerus’ widely discredited study on gay parenting to their appendix. The study was found to be flawed after review, and even Regnerus himself has admitted that it does not show what has been suggested. But ever since the study was produced, it has appeared in various legal settings, even in challenges to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
It is unclear what the addition of the Regnerus study would accomplish in this case. The challenge is based on Nevada’s unusual circumstances: domestic partnership and LGBT family protections exist in the state, but the law, while allowing gay couples to have most of the same rights as a marriage (including parental rights) stops short of allowing gay couples in the state to marry. Whether or not gay parenting is as ‘good’ as straight parenting, this challenge won’t change that reality.
Lambda Legal has filed a request with the judge to allow reply briefs in the case, to address the addition of the Regnerus study and other testimony introduced by the Coalition. The Coalition has filed a brief opposing any replies.
h/t Kathleen for these filings
Coalition’s addition to appendix:2:12-cv-00578 #99
Plaintiffs’ request for reply briefs:2:12-cv-00578 #100
Coalition’s opposition to reply briefs:2:12-cv-00578 #101