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

[johndylan1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[iguanaman]

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

Hmmm. how's that been working out lately?

 

[Fiddytree]

Hmmm. how's that been working out lately?

Not as well as we had hoped.

 

[Paschendale]

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]

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]

So here is my question: What is the state's interest in marriage equality?

What is the states interest in marriage at all?

 

[johndylan1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[wolfie]

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

It wasn't my quote...it was from a paper written by William C Duncan...

http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/Ave Maria 1.pdf

Most gay men pay their taxes..the same as everyone else...