# What is the secular purpose of DOMA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983 "2012-03-27T21:56:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/241 "2012-03-28T14:27:35Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > This whole notion that the government has “recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children,” is so much bullshit it makes my head spin. Look around ferchrissakes. There are millions upon millions of people in this country who were raised by a married man and woman who turned out to be completely fucked up individuals. How is that ideal? If the government is that interested in the ideal environment for children, then they should interview each and every prospective parent to sure they’re not complete idiots first. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible. > > And besides, if it’s irrelevant whether or not a couple has children - even with the sterling stamp of approval from the government - then what effing difference does it make what the the genders of that couple are? > > I’m with **Der Trish** on this one. This law is bigotry pure and simple. Assuming facts not in evidence. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/242 "2012-03-28T14:28:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You don’t get it. Very few laws are passed based on detailed sociological studies. It is “common knowledge” that it is better for children to bring them up within the marriage that produced them than outside of it or without it. That was a “secular purpose” of the law. If you are going to require detailed sociological studies for every law passed, there will be no laws passed. Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct, the OP just asked for any secular reason for the passage of DOMA. Your unsupported assertion qualifies. \*\* Rat Avatar \*\*, the three questions you asked in your OP have all been answered in one fell swoop, now that **Terr** has properly discerned your meaning. This discussion is over. One secular purpose of the law is to promote > [@Terr](#): > > …a better environment for bringing up children… and people pass laws based on common knowledge. If you wanted evidence of these assertions, or a weighing of the the relative societal costs and benefits of extending the privileges of marriage to more people, or an examination of the moral implications of such a law, or more than one secular justification for it, you should have said so in your OP. You did not, therefore you left yourself open to the devastating “Everybody knows it” maneuver. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/243 "2012-03-28T14:37:43Z")
[quote=“Furious\_Marmot, post:242, topic:616983”] > [@](#): > > Strictly speaking, you are entirely correct, the OP just asked for any secular reason for the passage of DOMA. Your unsupported assertion qualifies. Correct. > [@](#): > > \*\* Rat Avatar \*\*, the three questions you asked in your OP have all been answered in one fell swoop, now that **Terr** has properly discerned your meaning. This discussion is over. One secular purpose of the law is to promote correct. > [@](#): > > and people pass laws based on common knowledge. Correct. > [@](#): > > If you wanted evidence of these assertions, or a weighing of the the relative societal costs and benefits of extending the privileges of marriage to more people, or an examination of the moral implications of such a law, or more than one secular justification for it, you should have said so in your OP . Correct. > [@](#): > > You did not, therefore you left yourself open to the devastating “Everybody knows it” maneuver. If one wants to discuss the viability of the state’s assertion, then one must agree that the state does, indeed, have a compelling interest. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/244 "2012-03-28T14:38:32Z")
So after five pages of pathetic flailing and desperate assertions, what do we have as the secular reason for DOMA to exist? We’ve got, “children do better in single sex households” and “people will marry their sons or chipmunks”. It’s nice to see that the pro-DOMA side is literally unable to make a coherent argument. Although, it’s been that way the last ten thousand times a similar thread came up. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/245 "2012-03-28T14:40:24Z")
> [@](#): > > You did not, therefore you left yourself open to the devastating “Everybody knows it” maneuver. Looking back at the OP he wrote: > [@](#): > > What secular interest does the state have in controlling the formation of contractual bonds between consenting adults based on gender. Emphasis on **have**. In other words, is there any secular reason to keep the law on statute? > [@](#): > > Is there a compelling state interest in this distinctions? I don’t think that needs to be demonstrated in order to comply with the intent of this thread. To argue otherwise would be the two wrongs fallacy. If there is one legitimate secular reason for keeping DOMA that’d be sufficient. If the issue were that the intention of DOMA could be served better with another piece of legislation (say if the intention of DOMA was to protect children and it accomplished that, but interviews with potential parents would serve that role better), it’d be as irrelevant to this thread as the fact that legal age distinctions are arbitrary. Edit: That said, there’s [this](http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-06-28/commentary/30737395_1_gay-marriage-gay-rights-gay-employees). > [@](#): > > We’ve got, “children do better in single sex households”… It’s nice to see that the pro-DOMA side is literally unable to make a coherent argument. To be fair, I was the one that said children do better in single sex households (namely when being raised by lesbian couples) and I think that’s a fairly coherent refutation of the basis for DOMA. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/246 "2012-03-28T14:45:06Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:244, topic:616983”] > [@](#): > > So after five pages of pathetic flailing and desperate assertions, Glad to see you recognize the anti doma advocates for what they are. > [@](#): > > what do we have as the secular reason for DOMA to exist? > > We’ve got, “children do better in single sex households” and “people will marry their sons or chipmunks”. Who wrote that? > [@](#): > > It’s nice to see that the pro-DOMA side is literally unable to make a coherent argument. I’ve satisfied the OP’s question. I’ve given a secular reason for doma. there is no argument, it is what it is. > [@](#): > > Although, it’s been that way the last ten thousand times a similar thread came up. So why would you continue to futilely argue? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/247 "2012-03-28T14:45:43Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > To be fair, I was the one that said children do better in single sex households (namely when being raised by lesbian couples) and I think that’s a fairly coherent refutation of the basis for DOMA. I agree, I meant mixed sex households, as an assertion of the pro-DOMA side. Whoopsie. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/248 "2012-03-28T15:01:33Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Now, this discussion is not about incestual marriages (although with modern genetic counselling I do not see a compelling logical reason against it and woud be willing to entertain arguments for or against), but about the rights of two non-related competent adults to enter into a marriage **contract**. Bringing incestual relationships into the euation is muddying the waters, and greasing the slippery slope that assumes all “perverts” are alike. I think the key word here in ‘contract’. If two people want to love, honor and cherish each other for the rest of their lives, then they don’t actually need the government’s permission to do so. They do need the government permission to file a joint return. What it comes down is two people want to shack up and they want single people to subsidize them. Same sex marriage just means that gays and lesbians want the same subsidy. This brings up the interesting question of whether the government should be in the business of subsidizing marriage in the first place. It actually seems counterproductive from the viewpoint of encouraging full employment. It would make more sense if someone in a relationship gets a good job offer somewhere else, then they should be able to move without a lot of expensive legal proceedings. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/249 "2012-03-28T15:01:51Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Glad to see you recognize the anti doma advocates for what they are. You are advocating nonsense. You have no basis other than bald assertions to promote your desire to keep rights from Americans based on nothing more than whim. > [@](#): > > Who wrote that? Jtgain said something similar, I assume as a joke to illustrate how utterly worthless the pro-DOMA people’s arguments are. > [@](#): > > I’ve satisfied the OP’s question. I’ve given a secular reason for doma. there is no argument, it is what it is. You haven’t given a good reason. You’ve given a nonsense reason. If someone asks what the moon is made out of, you can assert that it is a cloud of glowing moths, but that doesn’t make it true. You have no evidence, you’re only offering words without facts behind them. > [@](#): > > So why would you continue to futilely argue? The anti-DOMA side always wins intelligent arguments. Why not be on that side? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/250 "2012-03-28T15:06:43Z")
> [@](#): > > If two people want to love, honor and cherish each other for the rest of their lives, then they don’t actually need the government’s permission to do so. Except sometimes they end up in hospitals that deny visitation to partners but not spouses. Kinda tough to be cherished when the rest of one’s life is spent on a ventilator in isolation. Not to mention adoption and custody rights. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/251 "2012-03-28T15:08:45Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I think the key word here in ‘contract’. If two people want to love, honor and cherish each other for the rest of their lives, then they don’t actually need the government’s permission to do so. They do need the government permission to file a joint return. What it comes down is two people want to shack up and they want single people to subsidize them. Same sex marriage just means that gays and lesbians want the same subsidy. > > This brings up the interesting question of whether the government should be in the business of subsidizing marriage in the first place. It actually seems counterproductive from the viewpoint of encouraging full employment. It would make more sense if someone in a relationship gets a good job offer somewhere else, then they should be able to move without a lot of expensive legal proceedings. Of course this is about contracts. It has always been about contracts. Married in the eyes of the State for tax, survivor, and similar considerations. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/252 "2012-03-28T15:14:23Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > No he didn’t. The closest he came was > > but that still doesn’t address the fact that if the government draws the conclusion that heterosexual couple = good homelife for children that they would take further steps such as outlawing divorce or requiring couples to get married if they have a child out of wedlock. There isn’t any reason for that to be the case. Again, the government makes imprecise laws all the time. That shouldn’t be surprising since our legislative system ensures that any potential law will be nitpicked like crazy, and it may be the case that only certain aspects of an initiative will have enough popular support to get enacted. If everything Congress did had to be absolutely comprehensive and precise, they’d never get anything done. If, for example, Congress passed a federal marriage law codifying marriage as a union between two consenting adults, and gave as its reason the desire to support and foster two-parents household for the nation’s children, it could do that\*, even if, say, polygamists claimed that their individual arrangements were just as beneficial, and could offer up evidence along those lines. That’s why states can say “You have to be sixteen before we grant you a driver’s license,” even though some people may be perfectly good drivers at 14, and the state _could_ just have a system where citizens could take the driver’s test regardless of age. As far as the courts are concerned, non-suspect classifications are just going to get “rational basis” review, and courts wil sign off on pretty much any rationale the state offers. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/253 "2012-03-28T15:31:39Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > This whole notion that the government has “recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children,” is so much bullshit it makes my head spin. Look around ferchrissakes. There are millions upon millions of people in this country who were raised by a married man and woman who turned out to be completely fucked up individuals. How is that ideal? If the government is that interested in the ideal environment for children, then they should interview each and every prospective parent to sure they’re not complete idiots first. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible. > > And besides, if it’s irrelevant whether or not a couple has children - even with the sterling stamp of approval from the government - then what effing difference does it make what the the genders of that couple are? > > I’m with **Der Trish** on this one. This law is bigotry pure and simple. > [@hoopified](#): > > Assuming facts not in evidence. Carry on. What facts am I assuming? That there are fucked up people in this country? Golly willickers, I guess you got me. I don’t have an official analysis of all the fucked up people in America. I mean outside of reality televsions, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/254 "2012-03-28T15:36:39Z")
> [@shy\_guy](#): > > As the Justice Department determined by combing through what I imagine must have been a nauseating legislative history, DOMA was in fact motivated by bigotry. But the concept has been upheld at the circuit level. _Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning_, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, a couple of federal district courts have found DOMA’s section 3 unconstitutional. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The “state” and documentation from the passage of DOMA is the most likely reason it will lose in a challenge to SCOTUS. I think they key question is: does DOMA require heightened scrutiny? If it does, it must fail. If only rational basis review is required, DOMA can be sustained. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/255 "2012-03-28T15:43:39Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You are advocating nonsense. You have no basis other than bald assertions to promote your desire to keep rights from Americans based on nothing more than whim. I don’t know what to tell you then. The state’s reason is to provide the best invironment for children. That’s a reason you may disagree with, but it’s a reason nonetheless. You may thinnk it a whim, but lots of reasonable people think otherwise. > [@](#): > > The anti-DOMA side always wins intelligent arguments. Why not be on that side? I’ve yet to see an argument based on anything other than emotionalism. You want gay marriage because it makes you feel better. It satisfies your alleged heightened sensibilities of fairness. But, in fact, it does no such thing. But your feelings are what counts, right? ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/256 "2012-03-28T15:47:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You are advocating nonsense. You have no basis other than bald assertions to promote your desire to keep rights from Americans based on nothing more than whim. > … > You haven’t given a good reason. You’ve given a nonsense reason. If someone asks what the moon is made out of, you can assert that it is a cloud of glowing moths, but that doesn’t make it true. You have no evidence, you’re only offering words without facts behind them. Silly goalpost mover. The OP never asked for a good reason. All the questions that were raised by him are satisfied with a single unsupported assertion. Take your highfalutin’ discussification elsewhere, this thread has been won. Also, envy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/257 "2012-03-28T15:51:36Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > YI don’t know what to tell you then. Obviously. > [@](#): > > The state’s reason is to provide the best invironment for children. That’s a reason you may disagree with, but it’s a reason nonetheless. You may thinnk it a whim, but lots of reasonable people think otherwise. You don’t understand. It is a stated reason, but it is not actually true. If I want you executed for killing James Dean, it may be my reason, but it isn’t a real argument for it. Why not deny gay marriage because it would anger space-aliens? Or because it would curdle milk, or cause eclipses. These are reasons by your standard, but they aren’t based in reality. > [@](#): > > I’ve yet to see an argument based on anything other than emotionalism. Then you aren’t reading. > [@](#): > > You want gay marriage because it makes you feel better. It satisfies your alleged heightened sensibilities of fairness. But, in fact, it does no such thing. But your feelings are what counts, right? Allowing a large minority to engage in rights everyone else has is _fair_. What you are unable to comprehend, is that there is no reason for it to not be allowed that isn’t based on bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/258 "2012-03-28T15:53:04Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Silly goalpost mover. The OP never asked for a good reason. All the questions that were raised by him are satisfied with a single unsupported assertion. Take your highfalutin’ discussification elsewhere, this thread has been won. > > Also, envy. Dagnabit! [throws hat into dirt] ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/259 "2012-03-28T15:57:19Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > Silly goalpost mover. The OP never asked for a good reason. All the questions that were raised by him are satisfied with a single unsupported assertion. Take your highfalutin’ discussification elsewhere, this thread has been won. > > Also, envy. I would have asked for a single reason if that was the standard I intended to meet. I asked what the secular purpose was, look up above at the title bar on your screen. If you go past that to read the OP you will see “What secular interest does the state have in controlling the formation of contractual bonds between consenting adults based on gender.” So although it may convenient to re-frame the original question it does not answer it. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/260 "2012-03-28T15:58:52Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > What facts am I assuming? That there are fucked up people in this country? Golly willickers, I guess you got me. I don’t have an official analysis of all the fucked up people in America. I mean outside of reality televsions, I suppose. What a brilliant argument. I’m stumped. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=14)