The Sutton Question for Traditional Marriage Supporters

[CriticalThought]

Regardless of whether or not people agree with Judge Sutton's Majority opinion that upheld same-sex marriage bans in the Sixth circuit, he did ask a rather compelling question I would like to pose to the forum.

The traditional definition of marriage denies gay couples the opportunity to publicly solemnize, to say nothing of subsidize, their relationships under state law. In addition to depriving them of this status, it deprives them of benefits that range from the profound (the right to visit someone in a hospital as a spouse or parent) to the mundane (the right to file joint tax returns)," Sutton wrote.

"These harms affect not only gay couples but also their children. Do the benefits of standing by the traditional definition of marriage make up for these costs?

He goes on to argue that this question demands an answer through the political process rather than the courts. It is also why traditional marriage supporters whimpered with the 6th circuit decision rather than heralded it as a major victory and vindication of their views. Even the court that ruled in favor of their position recognizes it hurts families. The supporters of these bans will now carry the burden of justifying why that harm is justified. It is a question that has considerable importance now that there are far more same-sex families, both with and without recognized marriages. Why should children of same-sex parents in one state enjoy the benefits of married parents but the children in another state be denied them?

 

[Declan]

Why should children of same-sex parents in one state enjoy the benefits of married parents but the children in another state be denied them?

Why should the children of married parents enjoy benefits that the children of unmarried parents do not?

 

[CriticalThought]

Why should the children of married parents enjoy benefits that the children of unmarried parents do not?

Excellent question but not relevant to the thread. Perhaps you should start your own. This is not a thread about abolishing marriage.

 

[Declan]

Excellent question but not relevant to the thread. Perhaps you should start your own. This is not a thread about abolishing marriage.

I did not mention abolishing marriage. It is the converse of your question. If you cannot answer it, then your question was not asked relevant to the stated subject matter.

 

[CriticalThought]

I did not mention abolishing marriage. It is the converse of your question. If you cannot answer it, then your question was not asked relevant to the stated subject matter.

Opposite sex couples have a choice to marry for the benefit of their children or not to do so. Same-sex couples in many of these states do not have that choice. The state denies that choice and imposes harm on their children. Your question is not a converse, it is a red herring. It attempts to derail the discussion into a debate about the purpose of civil marriage rather than the far narrower question posed and bolded in this thread of whether the benefits of defending traditional marriage outweigh the costs to same-sex families denied the benefits of marriage.

Given that it is generally considered rude to answer a question with a question, can you not answer the original question posed by Sutton?

 

[Phil_Osophy]

I think all marriage is wrong.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think all marriage is wrong.

I do not.

Thank you for the exchange in value judgements.

 

[Declan]

Opposite sex couples have a choice to marry for the benefit of their children or not to do so. Same-sex couples in many of these states do not have that choice. The state denies that choice and imposes harm on their children. Your question is not a converse, it is a red herring. It attempts to derail the discussion into a debate about the purpose of civil marriage rather than the far narrower question posed and bolded in this thread of whether the benefits of defending traditional marriage outweigh the costs to same-sex families denied the benefits of marriage.

Given that it is generally considered rude to answer a question with a question, can you not answer the original question posed by Sutton?

Marriage is not about children. A child enjoys no greater or lesser rights under law whether their parents are married or not.

 

[CriticalThought]

Marriage is not about children. A child enjoys no greater or lesser rights under law whether their parents are married or not.

Regardless of how you feel, marriage does generally have a measurable benefit to children in virtually all domains of life. Many of the civil benefits of marriage have a direct affect on the welfare of children. Many people choose to marry for the sake of their children and additional security and stability it provides for their children.

 

[Declan]

Regardless of how you feel, marriage does generally have a measurable benefit to children in virtually all domains of life. Many of the civil benefits of marriage have a direct affect on the welfare of children. Many people choose to marry for the sake of their children and additional security and stability it provides for their children.

Regardless of what you think, vis-à-vis the government, children are more likely to enjoy greater benefits if their parents are not married as it is an inherent flaw in American social programs to try to extend certain benefits to subsets of the population based upon taxable income as opposed to making government benefits available to all children regardless of income or the marital status of their parents. Look around at the garden path you just walked down. The reason we have so many unwed parents on welfare is because it is financially better to be unmarried in terms of benefits. Being married adds no additional "security" to a child.

 

[AGENT J]

Regardless of whether or not people agree with Judge Sutton's Majority opinion that upheld same-sex marriage bans in the Sixth circuit, he did ask a rather compelling question I would like to pose to the forum.




He goes on to argue that this question demands an answer through the political process rather than the courts. It is also why traditional marriage supporters whimpered with the 6th circuit decision rather than heralded it as a major victory and vindication of their views. Even the court that ruled in favor of their position recognizes it hurts families. The supporters of these bans will now carry the burden of justifying why that harm is justified. It is a question that has considerable importance now that there are far more same-sex families, both with and without recognized marriages. Why should children of same-sex parents in one state enjoy the benefits of married parents but the children in another state be denied them?

Nobody can justify the harms of equal rights to the families or the children. I can make endless lists of ways they could get screwed over without those equal rights.
The bigots and or people against equal rights simply dont care about those families or children because they view them as lessers or a family a child shouldnt be with.
Nobody will be able to give a logical and defensible answer to that question.

 

[chromium]

Why should the children of married parents enjoy benefits that the children of unmarried parents do not?

Point is that where SSM is illegal, those families will not be viewed as legit in the same way as even an unmarried hetero couple with kids. The law as such creates a 2nd class family unit

 

[chromium]

Marriage is not about children. A child enjoys no greater or lesser rights under law whether their parents are married or not.

Funny then how SSM opponents, when they aren't openly deriding gay couples as "perverts," consistently defend their position based on gay couples not being able to reproduce.

 

[roguenuke]

Regardless of what you think, vis-à-vis the government, children are more likely to enjoy greater benefits if their parents are not married as it is an inherent flaw in American social programs to try to extend certain benefits to subsets of the population based upon taxable income as opposed to making government benefits available to all children regardless of income or the marital status of their parents. Look around at the garden path you just walked down. The reason we have so many unwed parents on welfare is because it is financially better to be unmarried in terms of benefits. Being married adds no additional "security" to a child.

You're wrong. It is better for most children if their parents are married. The best thing for children is that their parents are in a loving, committed relationship that is recognized and protected by society, via the government. While marriage does not mean a couple is truly loving and committed, many married couples are. Now, there are loving, committed couples out there who aren't married. However they do not receive the same benefits as married couples due to the fact that they are not willing to take on some risk they see in marriage.

 

[CriticalThought]

Regardless of what you think, vis-à-vis the government, children are more likely to enjoy greater benefits if their parents are not married as it is an inherent flaw in American social programs to try to extend certain benefits to subsets of the population based upon taxable income as opposed to making government benefits available to all children regardless of income or the marital status of their parents. Look around at the garden path you just walked down. The reason we have so many unwed parents on welfare is because it is financially better to be unmarried in terms of benefits. Being married adds no additional "security" to a child.

I somehow doubt your conclusion is true. There are considerably greater benefits to being married parents than unmarried parents. It seems evident that you are unaware of why it is a government interest to promote marriage and to subsidize it

 

[RAMOSS]

I think all marriage is wrong.

Then, don't get married. However, other people might , and usually do disagree.

 

[dogtowner]

Dont see where children come into play so I question the judge's comment.
I am surprized the judge mentions visiting in hospital as he should know this is easily put to rest with standard legal documents freely available (same ones I used to insure access for a mil i was executor for).

If ssm kids are seen as 2nd class its not the law making it so its community standards which have always driven marriage law. I think it would be fair to say ssm is viewed as 2nd class not the kid.

 

[CriticalThought]

Dont see where children come into play so I question the judge's comment.
I am surprized the judge mentions visiting in hospital as he should know this is easily put to rest with standard legal documents freely available (same ones I used to insure access for a mil i was executor for).

If ssm kids are seen as 2nd class its not the law making it so its community standards which have always driven marriage law. I think it would be fair to say ssm is viewed as 2nd class not the kid.

Why should SSM be treated as 2nd class?

 

[CLAX1911]

I somehow doubt your conclusion is true. There are considerably greater benefits to being married parents than unmarried parents. It seems evident that you are unaware of why it is a government interest to promote marriage and to subsidize it

Everything be damned to support the point.

 

[dogtowner]

Why should SSM be treated as 2nd class?

Clearly more than a few people across the country see it such. And as rules defining community standards are set by those communities (age, relationships, bloodtests) and many voted specifically to not authorize they consider it so.

You can have a judge decree that brussels sprouts are tasty but if people dont agree it matters not.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Why should the children of married parents enjoy benefits that the children of unmarried parents do not?

Because that's what marriage is and what marriage does. That's the function of marriage, and the only reason that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating it at all.

 

[chromium]

Because that's what marriage is and what marriage does. That's the function of marriage, and the only reason that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating it at all.

I wouldn't call it legitimate necessarily, considering the emphasis the courts place on biological parenthood. You can't legally escape child support, just because you weren't married. The local DHS won't deny social programs to someone with kids, just because they aren't married. Seems to me that most of the government benefits attached to marriage are more related to the adults

 

[chromium]

Dont see where children come into play so I question the judge's comment.
I am surprized the judge mentions visiting in hospital as he should know this is easily put to rest with standard legal documents freely available (same ones I used to insure access for a mil i was executor for).

If ssm kids are seen as 2nd class its not the law making it so its community standards which have always driven marriage law. I think it would be fair to say ssm is viewed as 2nd class not the kid.

The 2nd class perception will fade in time as it becomes common, same with interracial couples. Making it legal only expedites that

 

[Captain America]

I'm still trying to figure out why the government should have a say, one way or another, as to who marries who. At best, it should be a state issue. Even then, I don't think any governmental agency, even a state government, should have the right to dictate or deny marriage to anybody, one way or the other. As long as the gays pay the same price for a marriage license as the straights do, for the purpose of administrative costs at the vital statistics desk, it shouldn't matter at all. It's nobody's business except the couple getting married. Be they straight OR gay.

 

[Hard Truth]

Regardless of how you feel, marriage does generally have a measurable benefit to children in virtually all domains of life. Many of the civil benefits of marriage have a direct affect on the welfare of children. Many people choose to marry for the sake of their children and additional security and stability it provides for their children.

Without a marriage, children could wind up with someone other than their parent's domestic partner if the biological parent dies.