What’s more, the goal post was immediately moved from “What is the law’s secular purpose,” to “Is that purpose 100% persuasive and defensible against all arguments.”
If Congress thought “The best type of union is between one man and one woman,” and limited the spread of same-sex unions accordingly, the fact that I think they’re wrong about that, or that they should have taken other factors into consideration, doesn’t mean it wasn’t (or couldn’t have been) their purpose.
Any government in the business of officially recognizing certain unions is going to have to draw some line, and unless some branch of the state individually investigates every individual set of circumstances to ensure a particular setup furthers whatever the state says its interests are, there are going to be some outliers that aren’t covered, and some that are that don’t further any of the state’s interests.
So DOMA also make it illegal for there to be any children born out of wedlock
or parents to get divorced
or sterile people to get married because whats the use if they can’t have children
So do you want to address any of the cites I posted where religion was invoked in the lobbying for the passage of DOMA?
Or any evidence that there is any compelling reason for the state to limit gay marriage or are ad hominems the only argument you are willing to present?
Because you’re advocating marriage for only reproductive couples, which implies no other kinds of families. Why shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to get married and provide a stable home to children who need one?
First of all, I am not advocating anything, I gave the “secular purpose” that the OP asked. If I am advocating anything, is that the state allow unions of any kind, of any number of people, with only the age restriction due to consent issues. If Grandma, her granddaughter and granddaughter’s boyfriend all want to “marry” each other, why should the state stand in the way? Or, even better, that the state does not concern itself with any unions whatsoever.
Second - gay couple can and do marry and provide a stable home to children today. It’s just that the US federal government found that it’s not interested to encourage and support such marriages. State governments, of course, can and do what they want about it.
Except the secular purpose was just demonstrated to be false. Gay couples can have kids, it’s called adoption. Therefore any law that claims to be for kid raising must rationally include them, or it is bigoted and hateful.
Why does the Federal government have an interest in promoting bigotry?
