Because of course he does.
Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette has been a hero of Michigan's right-wing culture warriors since taking office. Why is the Sixth Circuit marriage equality case coming before the US Supreme Court? First, because Schuette vigorously defended Michigan's same-sex marriage ban in federal trial court in the case of DeBoer v Snyder. Second, because Schuette appealed the federal court ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. This one elected official has been a major force against marriage equality; without his activism, it's entirely possible that marriage equality would be the law of the land today.
Schuette and his team oversaw the losing side at trial court in DeBoer v Snyder. This Michigan case is unique among recent marriage cases: it's the only one in which a full trial was held. Schuette's side were absolutely crushed at federal court. The trial judge determined that the State's arguments were legally wrong, factually inaccurate, misleading, dishonest, and implausible. Now as the appeal goes before SCOTUS, Schuette is one of several state officials who've filed briefs with the high court.
So has Michigan's AG learned his lesson and decided to stick with factual evidence and truthful citations? Of course not. Here is the First Great Lie in Michigan's official Brief for the Respondants in DeBoer v Synder (14-571)
On page 11 of Michigan's Brief, Shuette's team dishonestly misquotes the Supreme Court's Windsor ruling. Here is the paragraph from Schuette's brief. (Italics original; bolding added)
3. There is no due-process right to any particular marriage definition. And it would be illogical to hold that Michigan's marriage definition violates due process when its opposite-sex character provides Michigan's primary interest in having a marriage institution at all. As this Court observed in Windsor, the "limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples...for centuries has been deemed both necessary and fundamental." 113 S. Ct. at 2689[...]
So there you go, right? Marriage has been limited - lawfully and for centuries - to opposite-sex couples. And the Supreme Court says so, even in Edie Windsor's case, where the court famously ruled
for same-sex marriage. Game, set, and match, right?
Well, maybe, if the Supremes had actually said that. Here's the actual excerpt from Windsor, pp. 13-14:
III
When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither
New York nor any other State granted them that
right. After waiting some years, in 2007 they traveled to
Ontario to be married there. It seems fair to conclude
that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered
the possibility that two persons of the same sex
might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that
of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage
between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought
of by most people as essential to the very definition of that
term and to its role and function throughout the history of
civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it,
became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged.
For others, however, came the beginnings of a
new perspective, a new insight. Accordingly some States
concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given
recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex
couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment
to each other. The limitation of lawful marriage
to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been
deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be
seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust
exclusion.
See what he did there? The SCOTUS Opinion (and order) in
Windsor included a long preamble - a history of the recent evolution of our national dialogue on marriage equality. As part of this background, the Court's majority relates part of Edie and Thea's personal history. The Court notes that excluding same-sex couples from marriage
had been considered necessary and fundamental, but now states were coming to see this exclusion as unjust. How do you spin that in to an
anti-equality argument? Quote-mine it and change one little word. Again, Shuette's brief on behalf of Michigan:
...As this Court observed in Windsor, the "limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples...for centuries has been deemed both necessary and fundamental." 113 S. Ct. at 2689[...]
And that's how Bill Schuette lies to the Supreme Court.