Government's Role in Same-Sex Marriages: An Analysis Based on U.S. Constitutional Principles

The debate over whether the U.S. government should have any say in same-sex marriages continues to be a contentious issue. Understanding the current legal framework requires a deep dive into the 10th Amendment and the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision. This article explores the constitutional principles and the Supreme Court's role in this matter.

State Jurisdiction Over Marriage: The 10th Amendment

Under the U.S. Constitution, the 10th Amendment assigns the authority to govern marriage to the states. This amendment states, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Thus, marriage laws traditionally and up to the present day have remained within the purview of individual states.

In practice, laws regarding marriage vary significantly from state to state. This diversity is a reflection of the states' ability to tailor their laws according to their respective cultural and social norms. For instance, some states have had same-sex marriage legalized for decades, while others have only recently made it a reality. These diverse approaches underscore the principle that marriage is a state matter, not a national one.

The Obergefell v. Hodges Decision

The Obergefell v. Hodges decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2015, marked a significant yet nuanced moment in the landscape of same-sex marriage rights. The decision itself did not represent the U.S. government 'having a say' in same-sex marriages but rather declared that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

It is crucial to understand that the Supreme Court’s decision did not state whether same-sex marriages were a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing.' It also did not mandate that individual Americans support or oppose same-sex marriage. The decision focused on constitutional principles, ensuring that state laws did not violate the fundamental rights of LGBTQ individuals.

The decision did not create same-sex marriage; it merely required states to recognize same-sex marriages that had been legally performed elsewhere. For instance, before the decision, 36 out of the 50 U.S. states had already legalized same-sex marriage. These states were not affected by the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. The court’s ruling was more about equal protection under the law and the right to marry, which is based on the 14th Amendment, not a mandate for national uniformity in marriage laws.

Impact on Non-Same-Sex Marriages

A common misconception when discussing the Obergefell v. Hodges decision is that it would affect non-same-sex marriages. This is simply not the case. The decision's impact was limited to ensuring that states could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples by referencing discriminatory state laws. Non-same-sex marriages, which had been legally recognized and performed, remained unaffected.

To illustrate, consider M and A, two women who live across the street. They are legally married. Similarly, my best friend E and his husband T are legally married. My wife and I are also legally married. These three marriages are exactly the same in terms of legal recognition and standing. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision ensured that these marriages would be treated equally under the law, but it did not change the legal status of these marriages in any way.

For example, when I resided in New York, where the Marriage Quality Act was passed on June 24, 2011, no altercations or legal disruptions occurred. My marriage certificate remained valid, and the legal relationship between my wife and me, and by extension the stability of our family, was not altered in any manner.

In conclusion, the U.S. government's role in same-sex marriages should be limited to ensuring that marriage rights are protected under the 14th Amendment, not in dictating the outcomes or declaring personal opinions on the matter. The focus should remain on ensuring equality and constitutional principles, leaving the specifics of marriage laws to the states.

For further exploration of this topic, it is recommended to refer to legal texts, constitutional analysis, and scholarly articles on marriage rights and constitutional law.

P.S. My wife and I have two children, and M and A across the street have two children. The argument that the Supreme Court ruling required the dissolution of marriages due to its impact on same-sex marriages is simply a fallacy. The decision was about equality, not the dissolution of legal relationships.