52 PART ONE • THE AMERICAN SYSTEM
at issue
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to civil
marriage under the state constitution. The California
Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in May
2008, but California voters overturned the ruling in
November of that year by amending the state constitu-
tion. Still, as of January 2013, same-sex marriage was
legal in eight states and the District of Columbia.
The U.S. Constitution requires that each state
give full faith and credit to every other state’s public
acts. If a man and woman are married under the laws
of Nevada, the other forty-nine states must recognize
that marriage. But what if one state recognizes same-
sex marriages? Does that mean that all other states
must recognize such marriages?
In 1996, Congress attempted to prevent such a
result through the Defense of Marriage Act, which
allows state governments to ignore same-sex mar-
riages performed in other states. It is conceivable that
someday in the future, the United States Supreme
Court could rule that the Constitution requires all
states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in
other states. In June 2013, by refusing to decide a case,
the Court in effect upheld gay marriage in California,
but that refusal had no effect on other states.a
Same-sex marriage also raises a second important
issue: Should the federal government have to accept all
state-defined marriages? If so, same-sex couples would
be entitled to substantial federal benefits.The FederaL GOvernmenT
ShOuLd TreaT aLL STaTeS The Same
Should the national government be required to rec-
ognize same-sex marriages performed by the states?
In June 2013, the Court found that the federal gov-
ernment was in fact required to recognize such
marriages.b Many opponents of same-sex marriage
were appalled by this ruling.Opponents of same-sex marriage contend that
marriage between a man and a woman is the only true
basis for creating and defining a family. Major world
religions agree in rejecting same-sex marriage. True,
federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states
such as California and New York won’t force Alabama
or Utah to recognize these unions. But the people of
conservative states will still be forced to subsidize
these marriages. When same-sex couples are allowed
to pay less income tax, citizens of conservative states
will have to help make up the difference. When same-
sex partners die, all taxpayers will have to contribute
to the resulting Social Security survivors benefits.
This is not right.STaTeS ShOuLd Be aBLe TO
decide WhO GeTS marriaGe BeneFiTS
In recent public opinion polls, a majority of Americans
now favor same-sex marriage. Why should a couple
be denied the many benefits of marriage just because
of sexual orientation? Same-sex marriages do not
interfere with traditional unions in any way—indeed,
gay and lesbian couples strengthen the institution of
marriage by their attachment to it. Banning same-sex
marriage is unfair discrimination against a minority
group.
The argument that citizens of conservative states
should not be required to fund benefits for same-sex
couples does not hold water. We do not let pacifists
avoid paying taxes that support the military. Further,
almost all of the states that have legalized same-sex
marriages are prosperous ones that pay more into
the federal Treasury than they receive in return.
Conservative states are more likely to be the net ben-
eficiaries of federal spending. Citizens of these states
have no grounds for complaint.FOr criTicaL anaLYSiS
If same-sex marriage became common, what impact would this
have on American culture generally?ShOuLd The FederaL GOvernmenT recOGnize
Same-Sex marriaGeS PerFOrmed BY The STaTeS?
a. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).
b. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013).Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.