# 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:** 6
**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, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/101 "2012-03-28T03:44:38Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No compelling state interest. You may want to go look at that again. A “compelling state interest” is required to meet Strict scrutiny not having one is not a reason to actively deny a right. (if this is ruled under strict) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/102 "2012-03-28T03:47:47Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You may want to go look at that again. > > A “compelling state interest” is required to meet Strict scrutiny not having one is not a reason to actively deny a right. > > (if this is ruled under strict) And that’s the only way “compelling state interest” phrase can be used? If you don’t like me using that particular combination of words: the federal government doesn’t find it ENOUGH in its interest to promote or encourage homosexual marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/103 "2012-03-28T03:51:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because the state needs population to propagate itself. So the state should **require** any marriage to produce children? ---
**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, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/104 "2012-03-28T03:52:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And that’s the only way “compelling state interest” phrase can be used? > > If you don’t like me using that particular combination of words: the federal government doesn’t find it ENOUGH in its interest to promote or encourage homosexual marriage. No you used a legal term, it obviously enough “ENOUGH in its interest” to actively deny a group of rights based on arbitrary reasoning. You keep pretending like they just ignored the issue and didn’t pass a law, they actively wrote a law, because they didn’t like it and wanted to force that belief on others. “cuz” doesn’t count when it comes to “equal but separate” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/105 "2012-03-28T03:54:04Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And that’s the only way “compelling state interest” phrase can be used? > > If you don’t like me using that particular combination of words: the federal government doesn’t find it ENOUGH in its interest to promote or encourage homosexual marriage. So we’ve established that the original claim that “marriage is to propagate people for the state” is false if it excludes gay marriage because gay couples can and will raise children who need homes. So we’re left with, why doesn’t the federal government have a compelling interest in preventing Americans from unjust state sponsored bigotry and persecution? ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/106 "2012-03-28T03:55:02Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And that’s the only way “compelling state interest” phrase can be used? > > If you don’t like me using that particular combination of words: the federal government doesn’t find it ENOUGH in its interest to promote or encourage homosexual marriage. The federal government also doesn’t find it enough in its interest to promote or encourage black people and white people to marry. That does not mean that the gubmint should make it illegal (as it was not so long ago), it means that “they” should butt out. And by “they” I don’t just mean the federal government, that includes states, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/107 "2012-03-28T03:56:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > … because the Federal government doesn’t find it in its interest to promote or encourage homosexual marriage. No, because the Federal government is dominated by anti-homosexual bigots and people who cater to such bigots. They don’t care in the slightest if it’s in the interests of the federal government or not, only their own. > [@Terr](#): > > [QUOTE=rat avatar] > > Why, they have to have a reason to deny someone of their equal protection rights. No compelling state interest. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: They don’t need a compelling state interest to NOT persecute people. ---
**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, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/108 "2012-03-28T04:00:20Z")
The state has an interest in promoting > [@Terr](#): > > …a better environment for bringing up children… . No argument there. You say that state recognition of one man/one woman marriage promotes this reasonable goal and is therefore one secular purpose for DOMA. Show income and race adjusted evidence that in the US in 2012: 1. State recognized one-man/one-woman married households are better for children than other types of households, ie. Uunmarried cohabitating, common-law married, single-parent, homosexual, religious marriage without marriage license, etc. 2. State recognition of marriage promotes the formation of more one-man/one-woman married households than would otherwise form if the state gave no special status to married couples. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/109 "2012-03-28T04:01:10Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > So the state should **require** any marriage to produce children? There is an amazing lack of logic in this question. No, your statement doesn’t follow from what I said. ---
**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, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/110 "2012-03-28T04:02:05Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > So the state should **require** any marriage to produce children? this is silly and you know it. Obviously marriage has its roots in religion. All different kinds of religions, not just the Christian one. That fact is irrelevant. Given that at one time every government was religious in nature (if not completely in practice) and that seperation of government powers and religious culture is a relatively recent development, I’m not sure how one can claim ANY law - even the one’s liberals like - can have its roots in anything but religion. The state has recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children. Whether a particular marriage produces children is also irrelevant. Whether a particular marriage can still produce children is irrelevant. That is the secular motivation. Whether or not it’s true is also irrelevant, this is the state’s motivation. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/111 "2012-03-28T04:02:45Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So we’ve established that the original claim that “marriage is to propagate people for the state” is false if it excludes gay marriage because gay couples can and will raise children who need homes. > > So we’re left with, why doesn’t the federal government have a compelling interest in preventing Americans from unjust state sponsored bigotry and persecution? I can only repeat what I wrote in the beginning: Creating a better environment for bringing up children that are the result of the marriage. Homosexual marriages cannot naturally produce children. ---
**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, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/112 "2012-03-28T04:03:15Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > this is silly and you know it. Obviously marriage has its roots in religion. All different kinds of religions, not just the Christian one. That fact is irrelevant. Given that at one time every government was religious in nature (if not completely in practice) and that seperation of government powers and religious culture is a relatively recent development, I’m not sure how one can claim ANY law - even the one’s liberals like - can have its roots in anything but religion. > > The state has recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children. Whether a particular marriage produces children is also irrelevant. Whether a particular marriage can still produce children is irrelevant. > > That is the secular motivation. Whether or not it’s true is also irrelevant, this is the state’s motivation. But what about envy? ---
**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, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/113 "2012-03-28T04:04:08Z")
The thing about DOMA, though, is that it isn’t just a lack of encouragement; it’s actual _dis_couragement. It denies to same-sex marriage the various privileges that opposite-sex marriages (most of them, anyway) receive without question. I think that Equal Protection jurisprudence can charitably be described as “crazy nonsense,” but we’re stuck with it, and because of that, I agree with Attorney General Holder that sexual orientation is a suspect class, and that: \*In reviewing a legislative classification under heightened scrutiny, the government must establish that the classification is “substantially related to an important government objective.” (…) Under heightened scrutiny, “a tenable justification must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.” (…) the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law. (…) Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.\* [Cite](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html). In other words, while there is such a thing as a secular purpose to DOMA, under heightened scrutiny a court would have to look at what the _actual_ purpose of the law was, and needless to say, that’s problematic in the case of 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, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/114 "2012-03-28T04:05:12Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > But what about envy? World English Dictionary enviable (ˈɛnvɪəb ə l) — adj exciting envy; fortunate or privileged ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/115 "2012-03-28T04:06:06Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > The state has an interest in promoting . No argument there. > > You say that state recognition of one man/one woman marriage promotes this reasonable goal and is therefore one secular purpose for DOMA. > > Show income and race adjusted evidence that in the US in 2012: > > 1. State recognized one-man/one-woman married households are better for children than other types of households, ie. Uunmarried cohabitating, common-law married, single-parent, homosexual, religious marriage without marriage license, etc. > > 2. State recognition of marriage promotes the formation of more one-man/one-woman married households than would otherwise form if the state gave no special status to married couples. 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. Hey, you got something there. The fewer laws the better. ---
**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, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/116 "2012-03-28T04:12:17Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > this is silly and you know it. Obviously marriage has its roots in religion. All different kinds of religions, not just the Christian one. That fact is irrelevant. Given that at one time every government was religious in nature (if not completely in practice) and that seperation of government powers and religious culture is a relatively recent development, I’m not sure how one can claim ANY law - even the one’s liberals like - can have its roots in anything but religion. > > The state has recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children. Whether a particular marriage produces children is also irrelevant. Whether a particular marriage can still produce children is irrelevant. > > That is the secular motivation. Whether or not it’s true is also irrelevant, this is the state’s motivation. Thanks for admitting the law was intended to push religious beliefs on others but you may want to back a page. I provided studies that demonstrated it is not a better environment. Slavery and treating women as chattel were also biblical religious concepts. Luckily for us our founding fathers were really smart and established a government that was was not religious based and actually forbade arbitrary laws that were meant to force others to follow a particular religion. [ > [@](#): > > Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. ]([Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin](http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)) Those who support DOMA are the ones “destroying the constitution” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/117 "2012-03-28T04:14:44Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I can only repeat what I wrote in the beginning: > > Creating a better environment for bringing up children that are the result of the marriage. Homosexual marriages cannot naturally produce children. So gay marriages destroy the homes of hetro married couples?😕 Otherwise the “secular” claim is nonsense given children need homes gay couples could provide. Basically it’s a tool of rationalizing bigots no better than the KKK. ---
**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, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/118 "2012-03-28T04:15:10Z")
> [@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. > > Hey, you got something there. The fewer laws the better. No, it is a common bigoted idea, as was also “common knowledge” that “races shouldn’t mix” Why are you defending MORE laws if you are for less laws BTW. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/119 "2012-03-28T04:18:23Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So gay marriages destroy the homes of hetro married couples?😕 Did I say that? Do explain, how you got this from my statement? I am curious. Show me your train of thought. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2012, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983/120 "2012-03-28T04:19:42Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No, it is a common bigoted idea You seriously think that this statement: “It is better for children to bring them up within the marriage that produced them than outside of it or without it.” is bigoted? If so, I am sorry, we’re so far apart, there is nothing to discuss. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-secular-purpose-of-doma/616983.md?page=7)