# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/301 "2012-03-29T06:31:03Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Shifting the goalposts: how does banning homosexual couples from having their marriage recognised (prevalence of out homosexuals in population under 16% even in San Francisco) redress tax cuts for heterosexual marriage? If you increase the number of people considered married under the law then you shift the tax burden to single people. Somebody has to make up the difference. The rational solution is to eliminate the deduction for married couples and increase the deduction for dependent children in a revenue neutral way. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/302 "2012-03-29T12:01:54Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > If you increase the number of people considered married under the law then you shift the tax burden to single people. Somebody has to make up the difference. > > The rational solution is to eliminate the deduction for married couples and increase the deduction for dependent children in a revenue neutral way. No, the rational solution is a straight (pardon the pun) per-capita deduction. Increasing the deduction for dependent children is simply another cost-shift subsidy. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/303 "2012-03-29T12:11:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Except, as has been pointed, there is no evidence at all that a gay couple is any less capable than a straight couple at raising children. In fact, all the evidence on the subject indicates that there is absolutely no difference in outcomes between children raised in hetero households, and children raised in homo households. Except I’ve shown contrary evidence. > [@](#): > > Now, “It provides the best environment for children,” is arguably a secular argument. Since I’m making the argument (or, more accurately, explaining the state’s argument) and I’ve not mentioned God, then there really is no argument. It is a secular argument. > [@](#): > > But when that argument has been thoroughly demonstrated to be false, one has to wonder why so many people cling to it so fiercely? It has not been demonstrated to be false, as I’ve shown. > [@](#): > > It leads, naturally enough, to suspicions that the argument in question is not the actual reason for opposition to ssm. No. If you were right about the efficacy of the argument, that doesn’t mean that the argument doesn’t exist. It just means that some people believe something that is untrue. > [@](#): > > Yes, not being actively discriminated against by my own government would, indeed, make me feel much better. Except I’m quite confident you are being discriminated against in some way. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure why that alone is not reason enough to support gay marriage. Because governments discriminate all the time. We just have to decided where it’s accpetable. > [@](#): > > I’m also not clear why you’re so dismissive of fairness. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. > [@](#): > > Surely, the idea that the law should treat all of its subjects the same is both laudable, to say nothing of foundational to our national identity. It is indeed. > [@](#): > > I’m not clear how you think ssm does not work in furtherance of a more equitable society. Because there is a tension between ssm and how it effects others. > [@](#): > > Surely, you cannot be claiming that society is more fair when it has laws specifically targeting a subset of its citizens and singling them out for different, and disfavorable, treatment? I’m not sure fairness is the pinnacle of positive attributes for a good society. Are you? Our tax policy is replete with examples of what some might call unfairness. ---
**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 29, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/304 "2012-03-29T12:19:14Z")
I’m sorry, but the Tax Code Reform group is meeting down the hall, room 27B. This is for DOMA discussion and justification of withholding rights based on the gender of parties to a contract. With a side order of “Won’t somebody think of the children!!!” ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/305 "2012-03-29T13:07:10Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I’m sorry, but the Tax Code Reform group is meeting down the hall, room 27B. This is for DOMA discussion and justification of withholding rights based on the gender of parties to a contract. With a side order of “Won’t somebody think of the children!!!” That was pretty funny.🙂 Nonetheless, the poster above was appealing to fairness. My point is that fairness can not be the greatest virtue becase one can argue that there is so much unfairness among all kinds of things. I see little motivation to correct those. the tax code being the easiest and starkest example (that I can think of right now) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/306 "2012-03-29T13:57:15Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Because there is a tension between ssm and **how it effects others**. Now, now; what have we told you about waiting for the doctor with the rubber glove instead of pulling things out from there yourself? Oh, and you have the “affects”/“effects” distinction bass ackward. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/307 "2012-03-29T14:12:50Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Yet even the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group didn’t argue that the familial concerns were justification for the a rational basis to apply. > > They have retreated, mostly due to the ugly religious based reasons that the body themselves used to justify the law in the first place. > > The arguments themselves put their case at risk by justifying a higher level of scrutiny for the class. > > As has happened in other districts. You link to the district court’s opinion in Golinski v OPM, which rejected precedent in the Ninth Circuit concerning the level of scrutiny and applied heightened scrutiny to the issue. I agree that if heightened scrutiny is applied, the issue is a no-brainer. I am not sure I agree that heightened scrutiny is a lock. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/308 "2012-03-29T14:17:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Okay, so how is it related to the goal? Or is it just as shy guy describes - the Federal government allowing an exception to Full Faith and Credit, which I figure lets the states pass their own laws restricting same-sex marriage for no good reason. Sure. “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to determine the effect of states’ records on other states. The rational basis of this law can simply be that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/309 "2012-03-29T14:42:54Z")
Okay, so DOMA isn’t a bad law - it merely clears the way for bad laws. ---
**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 29, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/310 "2012-03-29T15:04:27Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Except I’ve shown contrary evidence. > > Since I’m making the argument (or, more accurately, explaining the state’s argument) and I’ve not mentioned God, then there really is no argument. It is a secular argument. > > It has not been demonstrated to be false, as I’ve shown. Your “proof” was a study that compared various married groups, it proved that hetro couples can make really poor parents, it did nothing to show that homosexual couples are bad parents. It demonstrated that the more stable the home is the better it was for the kids, thus it actually would infer that DOMA hurt kids, if it had even dealt with gay families at all. ---
**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 29, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/311 "2012-03-29T15:25:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You link to the district court’s opinion in Golinski v OPM, which rejected precedent in the Ninth Circuit concerning the level of scrutiny and applied heightened scrutiny to the issue. > > I agree that if heightened scrutiny is applied, the issue is a no-brainer. > > I am not sure I agree that heightened scrutiny is a lock. If you read the opinion in Golinski v OPM the cout did not “reject precedent” there was no precedent because it was based on Bowers v. Hardwick “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003) I agree it is not 100% sure that SCOTUS will apply heightened, but I think it is the most likely outcome. I think the 1st will stick with their standing precedent which is rational. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/312 "2012-03-29T15:41:14Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > If you read the opinion in Golinski v OPM the cout did not “reject precedent” there was no precedent because it was based on Bowers v. Hardwick Well, that’s the question. The opinion quoted another case which said, in effect, that when a higher court precedent twas found to be based on another, case, since overruled, the district court could assume that the precedent itself was overruled. So you had precedent in the Ninth Circuit that homosexuality was a matter for rational basis review only, _High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office_. But because the district court found that _High Tech Gays_ rested squarely on _Bowers_ (since overruled by _Lawrence_) it rejected _High Tech Gays_. The court _did_ reject precedent – it’s just saying it was correct to do so. Of course the district court that addressed _High Tech Gays_ found Bowers inapplicable, so I’d say there’s at least some question as to how persuasive Bowers and Lawrence were. But even setting aside what binding precedent might exist, the bottom line remains the same: right now, the Supreme Court has not given its imprimatur to anything except rational basis review of laws that classify gays. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/313 "2012-03-29T15:43:54Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > No, the rational solution is a straight (pardon the pun) per-capita deduction. Increasing the deduction for dependent children is simply another cost-shift subsidy. I don’t have any children myself, but I don’t have a problem with people who assume the burden of raising future citizens getting a tax break. My objection is to people who want the privileges, but don’t want to do the actual work. People object to overpopulation, but the fertility rate in the United States has been below ZPG for forty years and frankly I like to have somebody around to change my bedpan at the nursing home someday and also to pay into the Social Security Trust Fund. ---
**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 29, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/314 "2012-03-29T16:26:11Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Because there is a tension between ssm and how it effects others. What standard do you use to determine when “a tension between” two things is an acceptable basis for creation of a law, in light of the fact that the existence of this tension is disputed? In other words, how many people have to accept the reality of this tension and agree that it is a bad thing? A simple majority? One person? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/315 "2012-03-29T16:38:58Z")
I posted this earlier in the parent thread: > [@](#): > > DOMA-type legislation has nothing to do with “keeping marriage traditionally defined”. In a traditional marriage, the male was the head of the household and the female had few or no rights. Traditional marriage was effectively abolished in the US by the [Married Womens’ Property Acts](http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html) in the late nineteenth century and [marital rape laws](http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701) in the 1970s. The “traditional marriage” argument makes about as much sense as defending Roe v. Wade on the grounds that abortion is traditional. > [@Bricker](#): > > Of course the district court that addressed _High Tech Gays_ found Bowers inapplicable, so I’d say there’s at least some question as to how persuasive Bowers and Lawrence were. But even setting aside what binding precedent might exist, the bottom line remains the same: right now, the Supreme Court has not given its imprimatur to anything except rational basis review of laws that classify gays. That’s debatable. I recall you criticizing Romer v. Evans on the (correct) basis that the court applied something that wasn’t rational basis review. In any event, I don’t see much (other than Scalia’s typical unsupported nod to “traditional sexual mores”) keeping the court from applying heightened scrutiny here. The debate about whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic is over. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/316 "2012-03-29T16:44:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I posted this earlier in the parent thread: > > The “traditional marriage” argument makes about as much sense as defending Roe v. Wade on the grounds that abortion is traditional. > > That’s debatable. > > I recall you criticizing Romer v. Evans on the (correct) basis that the court applied something that wasn’t rational basis review. In any event, I don’t see much (other than Scalia’s typical unsupported nod to “traditional sexual mores”) keeping the court from applying heightened scrutiny here. True. I guess I should have more specifically said that the Supreme Court has never SAID it has applied anything but rational basis review to the issue… even though they did in fact create a fourth level of scrutiny, which commentators have called “rational basis with teeth.” > [@](#): > > The debate about whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic is over. Maybe. By that I mean: orientation is immutable. But behavior is not. That’s the point the _High Tech Gays_ court made. The attraction may be immutable; the behavior is not. This stands in contrast to, say, race or gender, where there is no behavior, just _being_. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/317 "2012-03-29T16:52:14Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > What standard do you use to determine when “a tension between” two things is an acceptable basis for creation of a law, in light of the fact that the existence of this tension is disputed? > > In other words, how many people have to accept the reality of this tension and agree that it is a bad thing? A simple majority? One person? That’s why we have a system of government. These things are fought in the arena of ideas, by whom we vote for, how we spend our money, etc. My personal tipping point is immaterial. My job is to convince you of my case, and then go on to the next guy, through the mechanisms described above. I can answer that for me, but I don’t think that’s the point of the thread. You, I would assume, have a different tipping point (or no tipping point at all) and that’s fine. You, in turn, will try to convince me. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/318 "2012-03-29T16:54:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > By that I mean: orientation is immutable. But behavior is not. That’s the point the _High Tech Gays_ court made. I’m not seeing it. In fact, I read the case as specifically rejecting the appellees’ contention that sexual orientation is immutable. > [@](#): > > To be a “suspect” or “quasi-suspect” class, homosexuals must 1) have suffered a history of discrimination; 2) exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and 3) show that they are a minority or politically powerless, or alternatively show that the statutory classification at issue burdens a fundamental right. > [@](#): > > While we do agree that homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination, we do not believe that they meet the other criteria. Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or alienage, which define already existing suspect and quasi-suspect classes. This rationale presupposes that homosexuality is some kind of optional behavior. Men who are only attracted to men are still gay even when they’re celibate. Anyway, I’m not sure that any of this opinion is still valid in light of Lawrence, resting as it does quite heavily on Bowers. Anyway, for the purposes of determining the constitutionality of DOMA, it doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is immutable. Based on prior holdings, DOMA would have to meet strict scrutiny because it burdens a fundamental right. ---
**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 29, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/319 "2012-03-29T16:55:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. I guess I should have more specifically said that the Supreme Court has never SAID it has applied anything but rational basis review to the issue… even though they did in fact create a fourth level of scrutiny, which commentators have called “rational basis with teeth.” > > Maybe. > > By that I mean: orientation is immutable. But behavior is not. That’s the point the _High Tech Gays_ court made. The attraction may be immutable; the behavior is not. This stands in contrast to, say, race or gender, where there is no behavior, just _being_. Yet an attraction to a person of the other gender who is of another “race” is not a mutable behavior? What differentiation do you make between homosexual marriage and an interracial marriage, as to level of scrutiny if you admit that homosexual attraction is immutable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/320 "2012-03-29T16:59:49Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Yet an attraction to a person of the other gender who is of another “race” is not a mutable behavior? > > What differentiation do you make between homosexual marriage and an interracial marriage, as to level of scrutiny if you admit that homosexual attraction is immutable. I don’t. I just point out that racial classifications trigger strict scrutiny. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=17)