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.
So the state should require any marriage to produce children?
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”
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?
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.
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.
No compelling state interest.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: They don’t need a compelling state interest to NOT persecute people.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
There is an amazing lack of logic in this question. No, your statement doesn’t follow from what I said.
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.
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.
But what about envy?
The thing about DOMA, though, is that it isn’t just a lack of encouragement; it’s actual discouragement. 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.
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.
World English Dictionary
enviable (ˈɛnvɪəb ə l)
— adj
exciting envy; fortunate or privileged
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.
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.
[
](Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin)
Those who support DOMA are the ones “destroying the constitution”
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.
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.
Did I say that? Do explain, how you got this from my statement? I am curious. Show me your train of thought.
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.