• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the states interest in marriage equality?[W:48]

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just to be clear I am not opposed to homosexual relationships as they are none of my business, just as other heterosexual relationships are not my business. I am, however, sympathetic to the position that marriage should retain its traditional one man, one women definition.
I can see that there is an argument to be made that the traditional view of marriage could be perceived as unequal treatment by some.
However there is unequal treatment under the law all the time. For example some pay 25% tax, some pay 15%, some pay 0. Some receive benefits of one kind or another, others do not.
So here is my question: What is the state's interest in marriage equality?
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,117
Reaction score
17,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Just to be clear I am not opposed to homosexual relationships as they are none of my business, just as other heterosexual relationships are not my business. I am, however, sympathetic to the position that marriage should retain its traditional one man, one women definition.
I can see that there is an argument to be made that the traditional view of marriage could be perceived as unequal treatment by some.
However there is unequal treatment under the law all the time. For example some pay 25% tax, some pay 15%, some pay 0. Some receive benefits of one kind or another, others do not.
So here is my question: What is the state's interest in marriage equality?

For one, the encouragement of stable familial relationships and two-parent households.
 

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For one, the encouragement of stable familial relationships and two-parent households.

Ok, I see that as an argument for traditional marriage because the advantage to having two parent homes for raising children comes, in part, with the separate roles and attitudes that mothers and fathers provide.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,117
Reaction score
17,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ok, I see that as an argument for traditional marriage because the advantage to having two parent homes for raising children comes, in part, with the separate roles and attitudes that mothers and fathers provide.

While some have made the case that the sex of the parent determines certain attributes that could be transmitted to the child, it could also be interpreted that the presence of two active and dedicated bodies in the child's life improve the measured success of that child. The difference between single and two parent households in, for instance, the educational success of the child was/is quite striking.
 

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While some have made the case that the sex of the parent determines certain attributes that could be transmitted to the child, it could also be interpreted that the presence of two active and dedicated bodies in the child's life improve the measured success of that child. The difference between single and two parent households in, for instance, the educational success of the child was/is quite striking.

Ok. And when compared to the struggles of single parenting, this could have some merit, but because we are talking about marriage equality as being a state interest the single parent comparison isn't a valid point. This speaks to marriage quantity (having more two parent homes), not to marriage equality.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Legally, the state doesn't need an interest in marriage quality. It needs an interest in preventing it. Which it doesn't have. The couples who want to marry certainly have an interest. If the state wants to stop them, it must have a superseding interest.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,117
Reaction score
17,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ok. And when compared to the struggles of single parenting, this could have some merit, but because we are talking about marriage equality as being a state interest the single parent comparison isn't a valid point. This speaks to marriage quantity (having more two parent homes), not to marriage equality.

The two are connected. It is in the state's interests to have what it sees as stable families, economic stability, less reliance upon public assistance, providing the best environment possible for its youngsters, and so forth. Marriage encourages behavior we find moral, economics we find favorable, and increases the future success of youngsters who are under that system.
 

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Legally, the state doesn't need an interest in marriage quality. It needs an interest in preventing it. Which it doesn't have. The couples who want to marry certainly have an interest. If the state wants to stop them, it must have a superseding interest.

You base this on what legal principal? Where is this stated?
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
You base this on what legal principal? Where is this stated?

On the federal government being one of limited power and where laws that infringe on constitutional protections (like the 14th amendment's equal protection) require constitutional basis. And on state governments being subject to those same protections (again, via the 14th amendment), and many (if not all) state constitutions include those same protections. Both of our states have that protection in their constitutions.
 

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The two are connected. It is in the state's interests to have what it sees as stable families, economic stability, less reliance upon public assistance, providing the best environment possible for its youngsters, and so forth. Marriage encourages behavior we find moral, economics we find favorable, and increases the future success of youngsters who are under that system.

We agree on the substance, but this still is about state's interest in marriage quantity, not equality. If the states only interest is in producing more partnerships that provide stability such as you described, civil unions are sufficient. Marriage quantity could also be increased through any number of reforms to the traditional marriage and divorce laws. In addition a change in marriage definition may have a unintended consequence of suppressing marriage if people perceive the institution of marriage as being diminished.
 

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
114,400
Reaction score
24,580
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is the states interest in marriage at all?
I think there are probably some good reasons why the state might have an interest in promoting marriage, see post by Fiddytree, However I am with you in that I don't think These reasons aren't strong enough to justify government sanction. I think that the tradition of marriage will persist and provide those societal benefits in any case.
 

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
114,400
Reaction score
24,580
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think there are probably some good reasons why the state might have an interest in promoting marriage, see post by Fiddytree, However I am with you in that I don't think These reasons aren't strong enough to justify government sanction. I think that the tradition of marriage will persist and provide those societal benefits in any case.

As long as marriage rights are passed on to same sex marriages I have no problem with state interest...
 

johndylan1

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
375
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On the federal government being one of limited power and where laws that infringe on constitutional protections (like the 14th amendment's equal protection) require constitutional basis. And on state governments being subject to those same protections (again, via the 14th amendment), and many (if not all) state constitutions include those same protections. Both of our states have that protection in their constitutions.

But the state is not a passive observer. The state issues licences, provides ceremonies, sanctions and provides benefits to married couples. This was originally instituted with a purpose in mind, and done so with the traditional definition. So although equal protection may be a valid argument in context with current social mores, what practical interest does the state have in marriage equality?
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
But the state is not a passive observer. The state issues licences, provides ceremonies, sanctions and provides benefits to married couples. This was originally instituted with a purpose in mind, and done so with the traditional definition. So although equal protection may be a valid argument in context with current social mores, what practical interest does the state have in marriage equality?

What interest does the state have in marriage inequality? The burden is on the state to prove its interest in limiting the rights of people.
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, you're looking at it in reverse. To discriminate, the state needs a compelling interest to *not* allow equality. This is consistently the standard used by the courts. But to indulge you, there are 14,000 children in the foster care system in my state, yet gay couples are banned from adopting (pending the court case). It's senseless to put the kids through that.

CUs are not sufficient because among other things, as the couple in the MI case will tell you, they have a CU but are *still* banned from co-adoption. If one of them dies, the kid of that person will be separated from the others. They are not eligible to join health benefits. They pay more in taxes, their family is not "equal" to the families of their friends, they can't go to YMCA together, and so on. It harms the kids and the couple no matter how you look at it.

There's also the immeasurable benefit of raising a society that values equality. When discrimination is enshrined in law, it's a lot harder to accomplish that.
 
Last edited:

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
68,913
Reaction score
16,035
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The state has no interest in marriage except collecting taxes. Why it's unequal i think it's conservative states paying lip service to religious dolts that think their opinions should be law.

Gay people aren't going to go away because people don't like them. so there is no reason for the state to disapprove. Win votes from lunatics and busybodys
 

wolfie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
3,229
Reaction score
461
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The state has no interest in marriage except collecting taxes. Why it's unequal i think it's conservative states paying lip service to religious dolts that think their opinions should be law.

Gay people aren't going to go away because people don't like them. so there is no reason for the state to disapprove. Win votes from lunatics and busybodys

The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation..

Either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the
interest in responsible procreation....
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,136
Reaction score
46,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You base this on what legal principal? Where is this stated?

14th amendment to the United States constitution. To create a distinction that results in unequal treatment, the state must show an interest in doing so. There's more than a century's Supreme Court precedent on the subject.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,136
Reaction score
46,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We agree on the substance, but this still is about state's interest in marriage quantity, not equality. If the states only interest is in producing more partnerships that provide stability such as you described, civil unions are sufficient. Marriage quantity could also be increased through any number of reforms to the traditional marriage and divorce laws. In addition a change in marriage definition may have a unintended consequence of suppressing marriage if people perceive the institution of marriage as being diminished.

Except they aren't equal and therefore aren't sufficient.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
68,913
Reaction score
16,035
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation..

Either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the
interest in responsible procreation....

Nothing in the least to do with homosexuality, nice try but completely missing the point.
 

Van Basten

Black Is Smart
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
4,661
Reaction score
3,252
Location
The New New Frontier
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Just to be clear I am not opposed to homosexual relationships as they are none of my business, just as other heterosexual relationships are not my business. I am, however, sympathetic to the position that marriage should retain its traditional one man, one women definition.
I can see that there is an argument to be made that the traditional view of marriage could be perceived as unequal treatment by some.
However there is unequal treatment under the law all the time. For example some pay 25% tax, some pay 15%, some pay 0. Some receive benefits of one kind or another, others do not.
So here is my question: What is the state's interest in marriage equality?
No more protests?
 
Top Bottom