For as long as we have been a nation, marriage at the civil level has been a contract that is left to the states. It has always been a civil matter, or a civil union. However, a religious marriage is another thing altogether. According to the church, marriage is not simply a contract; it is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Neither the federal nor the state governments have any business interfering with a sacred covenant protected by the First Amendment.
You would think this clarification between a civil union as defined by the states and a religious union as defined by the religious community would explain what is a federal right and what is a state right. Nonetheless, some liberal pundits and politicians reject the 10th Amendment argument supporting a state’s right to not accept same-sex marriages. They are claiming that to deny same-sex marriage at the state level is the same kind of discrimination as when some southern states denied interracial marriages. This policy of denying interracial marriages was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967, as it should have been. Now, some are hoping that the Supreme Court will do the same thing with same-sex marriage -- forcing states to accept them.
Yet, comparing a state that denies same-sex marriage to a state that denies interracial marriage is a specious argument. It only sounds good on the surface. What makes the political left’s argument so flawed is the fact that the Constitution allows for equal access to rights and institutions at the federal and state levels for people of different ethnic and racial classes. We can thank the Republican Party for that fact, by the way. On the other hand, the Constitution does not allow for such access based on sexual orientation or sexual preferences. This is a huge distinction. The federal and state governments cannot deny a right that is clearly defined by the Constitution. Since same-sex marriage is not defined as a right within the Constitution, the issue is left to each individual state. It is just that simple.
What will happen if the Supreme Court overturns DOMA? The Obama administration will then be given the opportunity to force same-sex marriage upon the states that do not want them, much like they are now forcing Obamacare upon the states. In fact, if DOMA is overturned it will also make it easier for the Obama administration to force same-sex marriage upon the church and religious institutions, just like they are now doing with the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate under Obamacare, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
For those who think this can never happen, remember that it is already happening. Obamacare and the HHS mandate are already in place. An Obama administration that is already forcing Obamacare upon the states will no doubt begin to force states to accept a new definition of marriage that they do not want. An Obama administration that is already forcing the HHS mandate upon religious institutions, in violation of their religious beliefs, will certainly force religious institutions to accommodate same-sex marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
While some may scoff at the idea that a government entity will try to force its will upon people of religious faith, one does not have to look far to find examples of state sponsored intimidation targeting religious organizations and people of faith.
Take for example, Washington state, where voters enacted same-sex marriages in this past November’s election. A florist, Barronelle Stutzman, is now being sued by Washington state and threatened with fines and penalties for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. This is a private business owner excising her right to be a conscientious objector, just like those who refused to serve in the Vietnam War. The collective power of the state is standing against her individual liberties.
How can people who disagree co-exist when one group uses the power of the federal or state governments to target those with whom they disagree? The proponents of same-sex marriage have some soul searching to do when it comes to this issue. They cannot claim to be the civil libertarians that they think themselves to be if they are using the government to malign people who hold to a definition of marriage that has been around for thousands of years.
As far as the woman who brought the DOMA case before the Supreme Court, Edith Windsor, she did so because she had to pay an inheritance tax -- or death tax -- when her same-sex partner died and passed along their property to her. This tax is truly unfair. The death tax actually required Windsor to pay more than $300,000 in taxes for receiving the property. However, this tax would still have to be paid if Windsor was receiving a home from her sister, mother or friend. Remedying the unfairness of the death tax would go a long way in fixing any unfair burden placed upon Windsor or anyone else.
Interesting enough, it has been conservative Republicans who have made many attempts to eliminate the unfair death tax. The Democrat Party has fought them tooth and nail, refusing to eliminate the death tax. In fact, the Democrat Party has consistently called for an increase in the death tax. The real blame for Edith Windsor’s hefty tax lies squarely with Obama and the Democrat Party, who refuse to eliminate the death tax, not Republicans who support DOMA in the name of states’ rights.
The Supreme Court must be very careful and narrow in their ruling on DOMA; otherwise, they will step on someone’s liberties either way. They can easily strike down the parts of DOMA that keep same-sex couples from obtaining federal benefits, while allowing the rest of DOMA to stay in place in order to protect states’ rights. As far as religious liberty is concerned, those who favor same-sex marriage will have to practice the same tolerance that they preach by applying that tolerance to the church and to people of religious faith, who have been practicing the traditional definition of marriage for thousands of years.
In Honor of His 103rd Birthday, Here Are The 20 Best Quotes From The Late, Great Milton Friedman | John Hawkins