Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Queller]

Then perhaps what they are looking for is a modified kind of business law or charity law, rather than a modified kind of marriage law.

There is absolutely no reason to create a new institution out of whole cloth when already exists that can meet the need with only the slightest of modifications.

 

[Queller]

You point to inconsistencies in the current practice of marriage as evidence that SSM should be legalised. I would see them the other way - I think we should take marriage more seriously. I think people who promise to love someone for life should be expected to honour that promise, not to break it if it becomes inconvenient.

Why don't you think homosexual couples feel the same way?

I think people who promise to be faithful should be expected to be so, and not excused for it. I think we should discourage people from having sex outside marriage. I think we should be doing everything we can to ensure that every child is raised by a married mother and father if at all possible, and by their biological mother and father as far as that is possible.

Same-sex marriage doesn't change any of those positions in the slightest.

I think there are excellent secular reasons for all of these positions, though my reasons for holding them are not purely secular, and neither do I see any reason why they ought to be.

In the US, imposing the religious beliefs of one group on others that don't share those beliefs (and even on people who do share those beliefs) is a big problem for the rights outlined in our Constitution.

 

[Queller]

Sex is a very powerful force and needs to be regulated. the failure to do so is responsible for many problems, including broken homes and the consequences that come from those.

Ah, finally the root of the argument becomes clear.

 

[Queller]

But they're not separate issues; they are interrelated. So they need to be dealt with as a group.

They are absolutely not interrelated. Unless of course, you think opposite-sex marriage is also interrelated with polygamous marriage.

 

[Queller]

The implications I have consistently referred to are the change in the purpose of marriage and the change in understanding of who is best suited to raise children.

You have yet to establish that the purpose of marriage has to do with children. You have simply asserted that it is so.

The purpose of marriage is actually different from the reasons any given couple get married. The purpose of traditional marriage is to provide a context for the rearing of children.

You keep asserting this is true without giving anything to support the claim.

Traditional marriage is consistent with the ideal that a child is best raised by their two biological parents.

"Consistent with" does not equal "reason for".

Changing the definition changes the ideal to being that a child can be raised equally well by any two (or other number) of competent adults.

Which has already been done with the acceptance of 2nd marriages, step-marriages, and the like.

 

[Queller]

Source?

Source?

The answer to both of these questions is "Windstaff's imagination".

 

[Roonwit]

[Edit: I have been reading a bit about DOMA and the legal issues around it. From what I have seen thus far, I think there is a good case for regarding it as unconstitutional, on the grounds that the federal government was taking to itself rights that were the prerogative of the states to determine, though not on any grounds relating to a constitutional requirement to recognise SSM. On the specific question of whether DOMA is justified, then, the answer to the question in the thread title is perhaps 'no' - but actually I don't think that was the intent of the question being asked. (And that having been said, it seems that there may well be a constitutional paradox, since effectively the choice by one state to legalise SSM may be forcing every other state and the federal government to legalise it whether they want to or not, which must itself be a violation of states' rights. All the arguments around this suggest that the definition of marriage should be a federal rather than a states' issue, because of the injustices that arise within the country if different states have different definitions. If that were the case, then there is no reason why DOMA ought not to stand, and be enforceable in every state, since it is the federal statute. But I'm not an expert and have only been looking into it a short time.)

I have also been arguing as though SSM is not legal in the US - I hadn't realised that actually most of the states have now legalised it; I thought only a few had. The issue with which I am dealing then is that of whether, prior to the enactment of statutes legalising SSM, there was any constitutional or legal or moral requirement for any states to legalise it.]

Ok, there are a lot of different bits of a lot of different arguments flying about. I want to try to understand what are the actual points of disagreement, so I can focus in on those. Perhaps you would be good enough to look through the list of statements below, and indicate whether you agree of disagree with each one. If you agree, a simple 'yes' is sufficient. If you disagree, a 'no' with a brief explanation as to why would be helpful.

1) There is no constitutional reason why a state could not choose to introduce SSM.

2) There is no constitutional reason why a state could not choose not to introduce SSM.

3) If (1) and (2) are true, then the question of introducing SSM or not is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.

4) When making changes in the law, the onus is on those proposing the change to prove it is a good change, rather than on those opposing the change to prove it is a bad one.

5) Marriage is not defined in statute.

6) Until the latter part of the 20th century, when people used the word 'marriage' within the English-speaking world, unless specifically qualified, both the speakers and listeners would have assumed that what was being referred to was a union of a man with a woman.

7) Homosexual couples are not biologically capable of having children of whom both partners are the biological parent.

8) The institution of marriage most probably came about in order to provide the optimal context for the raising of children.

9) The key features of traditional marriage (one man and one woman for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent) would be requirements for an institution designed primarily to provide the optimal conditions for raising children, but would not be requirements for an institution designed primarily to provide a context for the partners to express their love to each other.

10) Those couples currently able to marry who are not capable of having children differ in this regard from a typical married couple as a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. (That is to say, there exists a continuous spectrum between those who are fully willing and capable of bearing children within their marriage and those entirely incapable and/or unwilling, such that placing a dividing line at any point would be arbitrary.)

11) All other things being equal, children are best raised by their two biological parents living together in one family.

12) If the purpose of marriage is understood as being to provide a context to publicly demonstrate the love of the partners for each other, there is no reason to limit the number of partners to two, nor to limit it to unrelated partners.

I may need to add more statements later, but that will do for starters.

Roonwit

 

[Cearbhall]

You have yet to establish that the purpose of marriage has to do with children. You have simply asserted that it is so.

You keep asserting this is true without giving anything to support the claim.

He seems to think that this is just common knowledge and therefore doesn't require evidence. I assume it's difficult to accept that something which seems so indubitable based on one's personal background and beliefs is not, in fact, a given.

 

[Roonwit]

He seems to think that this is just common knowledge and therefore doesn't require evidence. I assume it's difficult to accept that something which seems so indubitable based on one's personal background and beliefs is not, in fact, a given.

I've actually given a detailed explanation of how the form of marriage (ie. the rights and responsibilities it entails) points towards its primary purpose being to provide an optimal context for child-rearing, and how the likely origin of the institution was for this purpose. So stop pretending that I haven't given reasons for my claims.

Roonwit

 

[Queller]

I've actually given a detailed explanation of how the form of marriage (ie. the rights and responsibilities it entails) points towards its primary purpose being to provide an optimal context for child-rearing, and how the likely origin of the institution was for this purpose. So stop pretending that I haven't given reasons for my claims.

Roonwit

You have given your opinion that the form of marriage is for optimal child-rearing. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, nothing more. Government recognition of marriage was originally more about property rights and securing alliances than anything else.

 

[Roonwit]

You have given your opinion that the form of marriage is for optimal child-rearing. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, nothing more. Government recognition of marriage was originally more about property rights and securing alliances than anything else.

Can you give any evidence to back up that claim?

Roonwit

 

[Queller]

[Edit: I have been reading a bit about DOMA and the legal issues around it. From what I have seen thus far, I think there is a good case for regarding it as unconstitutional, on the grounds that the federal government was taking to itself rights that were the prerogative of the states to determine, though not on any grounds relating to a constitutional requirement to recognise SSM. On the specific question of whether DOMA is justified, then, the answer to the question in the thread title is perhaps 'no' - but actually I don't think that was the intent of the question being asked. (And that having been said, it seems that there may well be a constitutional paradox, since effectively the choice by one state to legalise SSM may be forcing every other state and the federal government to legalise it whether they want to or not, which must itself be a violation of states' rights. All the arguments around this suggest that the definition of marriage should be a federal rather than a states' issue, because of the injustices that arise within the country if different states have different definitions. If that were the case, then there is no reason why DOMA ought not to stand, and be enforceable in every state, since it is the federal statute. But I'm not an expert and have only been looking into it a short time.)

I have also been arguing as though SSM is not legal in the US - I hadn't realised that actually most of the states have now legalised it; I thought only a few had. The issue with which I am dealing then is that of whether, prior to the enactment of statutes legalising SSM, there was any constitutional or legal or moral requirement for any states to legalise it.]

Ok, there are a lot of different bits of a lot of different arguments flying about. I want to try to understand what are the actual points of disagreement, so I can focus in on those. Perhaps you would be good enough to look through the list of statements below, and indicate whether you agree of disagree with each one. If you agree, a simple 'yes' is sufficient. If you disagree, a 'no' with a brief explanation as to why would be helpful.

1) There is no constitutional reason why a state could not choose to introduce SSM.

True.

2) There is no constitutional reason why a state could not choose not to introduce SSM.

This is a double negative, could you clarify?

3) If (1) and (2) are true, then the question of introducing SSM or not is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.

False dichotomy. There is another option, the will of the people.

4) When making changes in the law, the onus is on those proposing the change to prove it is a good change, rather than on those opposing the change to prove it is a bad one.

Yes, but once that has been done, the onus shifts to the opposition to explain (using secular reasoning in the US) to explain why it the change is not a good one. As same-sex marriage will have aboslutely no impact on the ability of two biological parents to raise their children, child-rearing as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage fails this test.

5) Marriage is not defined in statute.

In the US, many states enacted statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Most of these have been overturned as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

6) Until the latter part of the 20th century, when people used the word 'marriage' within the English-speaking world, unless specifically qualified, both the speakers and listeners would have assumed that what was being referred to was a union of a man with a woman.

True but not relevant. Until the latter part of the 20th century, the word "gay" was a euphemism for happy and/or joyful.

7) Homosexual couples are not biologically capable of having children of whom both partners are the biological parent.

True but irrelevant. Many types of marriage consist of partners who are not biologically capable of being the biological parents of any children.

8) The institution of marriage most probably came about in order to provide the optimal context for the raising of children.

Possibly true for the religious institution of marriage but government recognition of marriage had more to do with property rights and securing alliances.

9) The key features of traditional marriage (one man and one woman for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent) would be requirements for an institution designed primarily to provide the optimal conditions for raising children, but would not be requirements for an institution designed primarily to provide a context for the partners to express their love to each other.

No. Being raised by biological parents is not always the optimal environment for raising children nor has "one man and one woman for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent" ever been a requirement for traditional marriage.

10) Those couples currently able to marry who are not capable of having children differ in this regard from a typical married couple as a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. (That is to say, there exists a continuous spectrum between those who are fully willing and capable of bearing children within their marriage and those entirely incapable and/or unwilling, such that placing a dividing line at any point would be arbitrary.)

True, which is why placing the dividing line at same-sex couples is arbitrary. Same-sex couples who cannot marry are no different in kind than a couple who can not have children due to age, injury, or choice.

11) All other things being equal, children are best raised by their two biological parents living together in one family.

Provisionally true but irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage.

12) If the purpose of marriage is understood as being to provide a context to publicly demonstrate the love of the partners for each other, there is no reason to limit the number of partners to two, nor to limit it to unrelated partners.

True, and if the legal framework of marriage can be changed to accommodate more than two people at a time, go for it.

The bit about related partners will always be debated due to the massive potential for undue influence on the part of one of the parties over the other(s).

 

[Roonwit]

2) If a state decides not to introduce gay marriage, it is not violating the constitution. I phrased it the way I did because a state prohibiting SSM is not changing he law but simply keeping thngs as they were.

3) Whose job is it to enact he will of the people?

4) So you actually mean 'no'.

8) Evidence, please.

9) You're not responding to the statement I wrote. The statement is saying, IF I were to design institutions for those two purposes, traditional marriage would fit the bill for the first purpose very well, but not particularly the second.

Roonwit

 

[Queller]

Can you give any evidence to back up that claim?

Roonwit

Sure. Look at the rights that come about as a result of government recognition of marriage.

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Source

Can you provide anything similar for your claim that the likely origin of the institution of marriage was to provide an optimal context for child-rearing? Remember that we are discussing government recognition of marriage, nothing more.

 

[Roonwit]

You haven't provided evidence that that is why government recognised marriage, only that those are some of the benefits currently given.

Roonwit

 

[Queller]

2) If a state decides not to introduce gay marriage, it is not violating the constitution.

True. However, if the states prevents same-sex couples from marrying they must have a reason that meets the legal burden.

I phraded it the way I did because a state prohibiting SSM is not changing he law but simply keeping thngs as they were.

3) Whose job is it to enact he will of the people?

Usually the legislature. However, the legislature can also enact something against the will of the people as long as it is Constitutional. That's why I said there was a third option.

4) So you actually mean 'no'.

I mean yes which is why I wrote yes. It's not my fault you asked a question with two different clauses. I answered both clauses and explained my reasoning.

8) Evidence, please.

Post #234

9) You're not responding to the statement I wrote. The statement is saying, IF I were to design institutions for those two purposes, traditional marriage would fit the bill for the first purpose very well, but not particularly the second.

1) You might be correct, if your "key features of traditional marriage" were requirements for marriage. Since they aren't, your analogy is a false one.

2) I actually believe that two people for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent, is an excellent requirement for an institution designed primarily to provide a context for the partners to express their love to each other.

 

[Roonwit]

By the way, it is less likely that religious marriage is to do with children than that state marriage is. From a biblical point of view, I would point to marriage as a symbol of Christ and the Church. That's much more about the couple. It wad because I was restricted to secular arguments that I explored the likely evolution of marriage as a child-rearing institution.

Roonwit

 

[Queller]

You haven't provided evidence that that is why government recognised marriage, only that those are some of the benefits currently given.

1) Those benefits are the reasons why government recognizes marriage. If those benefits were not in question, there would be no reason for governments to recognize marriage.

2) I've still provided more support for my position than you have for yours.

 

[Queller]

By the way, it is less likely that religious marriage is to do with children than that state marriage is. From a biblical point of view, I would point to marriage as a symbol of Christ and the Church. That's much more about the couple. It wad because I was restricted to secular arguments that I explored the likely evolution of marriage as a child-rearing institution.

Roonwit

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.

God's commandment to Adam and Eve was to "be fruitful, and multiply" and His description of why He created Eve for Adam was "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Taken together, if those two statements by God are not about marriage and children, then I don't know what is.

 

[Roonwit]

True. However, if the states prevents same-sex couples from marrying they must have a reason that meets the legal burden.

And what is the legal burden? And if there is dispute between the legislature and the courts over whether it has been met, who has the final say?

Usually the legislature. However, the legislature can also enact something against the will of the people as long as it is Constitutional. That's why I said there was a third option.

The third option seems to be revolution. Is that what you mean? The army, basically (whoever's is strongest).

I mean yes which is why I wrote yes. It's not my fault you asked a question with two different clauses. I answered both clauses and explained my reasoning.

It's clear that what you actually mean is that the burden of proof is on whichever side disagrees with you.

1) You might be correct, if your "key features of traditional marriage" were requirements for marriage. Since they aren't, your analogy is a false one.

It's not an analogy, it is the traditional understanding of what marriage is which is what is under discussion. That'll be a yes to that one, then. Thanks.

2) I actually believe that two people for life, with the exclusion of close relatives and the mentally incompetent, is an excellent requirement for an institution designed primarily to provide a context for the partners to express their love to each other.

Can close relatives not love each other? Can immature people not love each other? Can three people not all love each other?

1) Those benefits are the reasons why government recognizes marriage. If those benefits were not in question, there would be no reason for governments to recognize marriage.

No they aren't, because governments recognised marriages long before those benefits were given.

2) I've still provided more support for my position than you have for yours.

No you haven't.

Roonwit