ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, May 26, 1996 TAG: 9605240024
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RICHARD SINCERE
THE HOUSE Judiciary Committee held a hearing the other day on a proposed law called the Defense of Marriage Act. This bill represents an unprecedented federal encroachment on the rights of states to make their own laws.
Indeed, the legislation is more intrusive than any new law or regulation since Republicans took control of Congress. It contradicts promises made in the "Contract with America" and grossly violates the Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
Introduced by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), the bill aims to outlaw same-sex (gay and lesbian) marriages by defining marriage under federal law as "a legal union between one man and one woman." The bill was motivated by the prospect that the Hawaii Supreme Court may soon rule that prohibiting same-sex marriages violates the state constitution - therefore the government should recognize same-sex couples as having the same responsibilities and rights as other married couples.
Proponents of the bill say it does not prevent individual states from legalizing same-sex marriage, but merely assures that (1) such marriages will not be recognized by the federal government and (2) other states, which do not explicitly legalize such relationships, do not have to recognize them. The result would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Under current law, married couples are entitled to file joint tax returns. Spouses can name their partners as dependents for tax purposes and as beneficiaries for pensions and insurance (including Social Security and veterans' benefits). Children from the marriage are recognized as dependents and as rightful heirs when parents die.
Suppose that most states continued to prohibit same-sex marriages. Suppose, too, that Hawaii legalized such unions and five other states followed suit. What would happen? To enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government would have to expand its capacity to stick its nose into the private lives of every family in the country.
For instance, the Internal Revenue Service - already one of the most intrusive and feared federal agencies - would have to scrutinize every tax return from those six states to determine whether same-sex couples are filing jointly, or declaring each other as dependents for income tax purposes. Every time the Department of Veterans Affairs gets a claim from a widow, it would have to make a determination of the sex of her deceased spouse. Ditto for the Social Security Administration.
Would the federal government recognize the children of such couples as legitimate? Under state law they would be dependents and heirs - but would they be eligible for the federal benefits that other minor children are entitled to? How would this affect inheritance matters, including estate taxes?
And what would happen when these married couples traveled across state lines? Would spousal rights - such as visiting a family member in the hospital, or being notified as "next of kin" in case of death or accident - be recognized? This federal marriage law means to say "No."
Family law has always been the province of state and local government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the word "marriage" mentioned. What we have is a transparent intrusion of federal power on the rights of the people to make their own laws at the state level. These rights are guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment, a favorite of presidential candidate Bob Dole, who quotes it on the stump: "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."
In their Contract with America, congressional Republicans promised to reduce the size, scope and power of the federal government, to shrink its intrusive character, and to allow individual American citizens to pursue happiness without the interference of government. Yet, as Odell Huff of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty said in the Washington Times: "Now these same Republican legislators are wasting time, energy and tax dollars trying to knock down the straw man of same-sex marriages."
Why do they - and, as it happens, presidential candidate Bill Clinton - support this bill, which increases the intrusiveness of the federal government by encroaching on what has previously been reserved to the states?
The federal government has no more right to define marriage law for the states than it has to define speed limits on state roads, to prescribe books used in elementary schools, or to set the salaries of state officials.
The Founders wisely divided power between Washington and the states. Let's let the states decide their own family matters.
Richard Sincere of Arlington is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
LENGTH: Medium: 89 linesby CNB