I should have done this post without the quote 
it was a general clarification.
That is interesting. I have no doubt that such a law easily survives rational basis review (since practically anything does), and I don’t think it’s crazy for a circuit court to refrain from applying heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation when the Supreme Court hasn’t yet done so.
At any rate, I agree completely that the decisive question is whether heightened scrutiny applies. In that regard, I find the Attorney General’s argument most persuasive, though, as I said, I do think equal protection doctrine is basically nuts.
So we are still at the
“Because I’m bothered by gay people”
and “because the state wanted it”
Am I correct that your argument is now limited to those two?
We are in a post Lawerance vs. Texas world now, it seems that sexual orientation has moved up to a “rational basis plus” level now.
But I would think that under a rational basis there is a chance that it would be upheld but that it would be unlikely with the information we have at this point in time.
As for letting it slide and the cite, I said it was from Wikipedia’s description of Pace v. Alabama. Furthermore, I assumed that everyone knows that with Wiki, you get what you pay for but regardless of whether or not the quote is an accurate analysis of Green v Alabama, I thought it interesting that while even you (I’m assuming) don’t agree with the statement it makes about miscegenation and interracial marriages, a lot of people would agree with it if it were a statement about SSM.
For context of the quotes from the case, the Court was examining the state interest in marriage. An argument can be put forth that marriage is merely a contract and that nothing should prevent two adults of different races (or in the current issue, same sex) from creating a contract
[QUOTE=Green v. State of Alabama]
But the subject should be regarded with a broader view. Is marriage, as the argument objected to assumes, nothing more than a civil contract? Is it, “in that character alone,” dealt with by the municipal law?
Doubtless, it is by a contract–that is, by the agreement of the parties–that they enter into the state of marriage. But, as was said by the Supreme Court of Delaware, it is a contract “of a peculiar character and subject to peculiar principles. It may be entered into by persons who are not capable of forming any other lawful contract; it can be violated and annulled by law, which no other contract can be; it can not be determined by the will of the parties, as any other contract may be; and its rights and obligations are derived rather from the law relating to it, than from the contract itself.”-- Townsend v. Griffin, 4 Har 440. According to Judge Story: “Marriage is not treated as a mere contract between the parties, subject as to its continuance, dissolution and effects, to their mere pleasure and intentions. But it is treated as a civil institution, the most interesting and important in its nature, of any in society.”–Confl. of Laws, § 200. Ch. J. Robertson, of Kentucky, said of it: “As every well organized society is essentially interested in the existence and harmony and decorum of all its social relations, marriage, the most elementary and useful of them all, is regulated and controlled by the sovereign power of the State, and can not, like mere contracts, be dissolved by the mutual consent only of contracting parties, but may be abrogated by the sovereign will, either with or without the consent of both parties, whenever the public good, or justice to both or either of the parties will be thereby subserved. Such a remedial and conservative power is inherent in every independent nation, and cannot be subjected to political restraint or foreign control, consistently with the public welfare. And, therefore, marriage, being much more than a contract, and depending essentially on the sovereign will, is not, as we presume, embraced by the constitutional interdiction of legislative acts impairing the obligation of contracts.”-- Maguire [p. 194] v. Maguire, 7 Dana 181. And Mr. Bishop, (from whose work on Marriage and Divorce, the foregoing extracts are taken, and who insists that marriage is not a contract, but a status,) says: “The fact that parties enter into marriage only over the threshold of a contract, furnishes all the foundation there exists for the exceedingly loose definition which terms it a contract.”–1 vol. § 12 (36a).
[/QUOTE]
So now having determined that marriage is more than a contract and is an institution under control of a sovereign state, Justice Henry writes
[QUOTE=Green v. State of Alabama]
This institution is, indeed, “the most interesting and important in its nature of any in society.” It is through the marriage relation that the homes of a people are created–those homes in which, ordinarily, all the members of all the families of the land are, during a part of every day, assembled together; where the elders of the household seek repose and cheer, and reparation of strength from the toils and cares of life; and where, in an affectionate intercourse and conversation with them, the young become imbued with the principles, and animated by the spirit and ideas, which in a great degree give shape to their characters and determine the manner of their future lives. These homes, in which the virtues are most cultivated and happiness most abounds, are the true officinae gentium–the nurseries of States. Who can estimate the evil of introducing into their most intimate relations, elements so heterogeneous that they must naturally cause discord, shame, disruption of family circles and estrangement of kindred? While with their interior administration, the State should interfere but little, it is obviously of the highest public concern that it should, by general laws adapted to the state of things around them, guard them against disturbances from without.
[/QUOTE]
N.B.: Green was the case that went to Alabama’s Supreme Court
Pace was the case that went to SCOTUS but both upheld laws against interracial marriages.
Because you have difficulty understanding simple reasoning
Then you’re ready to stipulate that the state has an areligious reason for doma and are now ready to discuss its efficacy.
Please try to focus.
Then you aren’t reading.
Except I gave a reason.
As is your habit, you are magnificently wrong.
Lawrence v. Texas was a 2003 decision.
Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning was a 2006 decision.
In other words, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning was decided post-Lawrence.
As an aside, you need to learn how to quote.
I think your reasoning might be a little too simple.
The state has a nonsense excuse. That isn’t a reason that’s based in reality.
I’m a God-damn flash-pumped-ruby-laser compared to the mush-mouth nonsense being shat out by the pro DOMA side. 
You gave a nonsense excuse. That isn’t a reason.
There is still one part of hoopified’s argument that bothers me. I’m hoping he can address it. I’ll assume hoopified argument that the state has an interest in heterosexual marriage and its relationship to childrearing. Indeed outside of DOMA there are many family laws based on this that to a rational view are blatantly ridiculous. For example, in California, if you find out your childborn while you were married is not yours anytime after their third birthday, TFB because you are legally responsible to support that child anyways.
I can even get that the natural corollaries to this position viz. requiring couples to get married if they have a child and outlawing divorce would be ridiculous if codified. A rational view would say that if marriage is all about a supportive environment for children then a supportive i.e. 2 parents: one man and one woman is required (not just suggested). I still don’t see how this argument allows for sterile couples to marry and same-sex couples to not marry but let’s ignore that for now.
So we have established that a heterosexual nuclear family is in the best interest of the child and that the state has an interest in promoting this paradigm BUT that it would be ludicrous to mandate that every child be brought up in a two hetero-parent home.
Given that, isn’t there a contradiction? Why shouldn’t the government outlaw divorce in cases where a minor child is involved? Also, could a state dictate that due to state interest that a child have a stable upbringing, that the birth of a child creates a de jure marriage between the couple?
On another point, I’m scared as hell that I’m in 100% agreement with Lobohan on something.
3 years is nanoseconds in law.
In Massachusetts v. HHS was 2010 the DOJ had given up on the rational basis argument based on “better for the kids” and had reduced all of their rational basis arguments to “Status Que”
FYI here were the original justifications for the law.
Thank you for the clarification. I thought Terr’s divination of the true meaning of the OP was incorrect but didn’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth after getting my hand slapped for whatever it was.
Are you sure you meant what you wrote in plain English? Because there’s some guys who say you actually meant something that makes them right.
This is absolutely a fair and discussion worthy response. You have a good handle on the doma argument.
To be sure, the state could outlaw divorce, and at one time in the not too distant past, it was much, much more difficult to divorce. But we have decided as a society that relaxing those standards may benefit the children in the family. That’s arguable, but that’s the course it took. I’ll grant you that the standards for divorce may seem arbitrary, and probably are, but is there another way to manage these relationships from a societal pov? If could discover some hard and fast rules that would apply like a blanket, yes, the dilemma would be much easier. But we can’t. Humans are messy. They are also unique. It’s impossible to apply standards that will always work. Which is why the anecdotal evidence proffered in this thread is ridiculous.
So the state has taken the next best option. To support the institution that has the best chance of producing the best offspring - which is at best reasonable and at worst debatable(see the study i linked to above). Coupled with this approach is the idea that severability of this institution can sometimes be the right thing for children. One could argue that the pendulum has swung too far the other way, but that’s a different argument.
Does this make sense?
Well, shit. That was easy. Mods, may as well close this puppy up.
Yep. You’re done here.
Great. I win, I guess since you don’t really want to tell me what the hell your were babbling about in the first place. You know, I was just being snide about the reality television thing. I still have no clue what you think I was assuming as a fact.
Exactly.
Rutabega.
Anybody want to throw me a bone here? What is this guy going on about?
More brilliance.
Seriously. Someone help me out. He won’t tell me what he’s talking about and just keeps claiming that I’m brilliant. And while that’s the sort of think I like in a date, in a debate thread I’m left feeling a little let down.