Up in Massachusetts, an interesting battle is being waged over the 10th Amendment and so-called “States’ Rights”.
Per this AJC article, here’s the basic story:
As some of you know, in 2004 Massachusetts became one of the first States to full-on legalize gay marriage. Under State law there, there is no legal difference whatsoever between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. Obviously, religious groups in the State are free to adhere to different standards, except where they act as an employer.
The problem comes from the fact that there, as in Georgia, many of the citizens are employees of the Federal government – which, per the Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 90s, does not offer benefits to same sex couples.
Therefore, postal workers and other Federal employees cannot place their same-sex spouses on their benefits package, such as employer-provided insurance.
One such couple sued, and a US District Court Judge whose district apparently only encompasses Massachusetts has ruled in the couples favor that the DOMA “interferes with the right of a state to define marriage”.
That quote, in particular, is what makes this interesting politically regarding the 10th Amendment.
You see, Massachusetts isn’t typically an area you hear about very much in the “States’ Rights Movement”. They were a solid part of the Union the last time things were this heated, and their politics there tend to be decently far out to the left on the disengenuous left/right political spectrum.
Contrast that to the more typical places you hear about “States’ Rights” – Georgia, Alabama, etc – where the politics is much further to the right. Indeed, Georgia passed its own gay marriage ban 76%-24% in 2004. In Georgia, “States’ Rights” proponents also typically are strong proponents of “traditional marriage”. It should be noted that the opposite is NOT true – not all proponents of traditional marriage are also proponents of States’ Rights. Indeed, I would argue that the percentage of those who favor traditional marriage who also are strong proponents of States’ Rights is very miniscule.
But here is the crux:
Will the States’ Rights proponents in Georgia support Massachusetts’ rights, even though they disagree with what they are doing? Or will they instead defend the “leviathan in Washington”?
Theo-conservatives are all about things like “smaller government”, “state’s rights”, and “local control”….right up to the point where they pick up their Bible and set down The Constitution. Then, all bets are off.
My observation has been that the folks who have little respect for the Bible – have little respect for the Constitution as well.
Cartman, it’s not a matter for having or not having repsect for either. The problem arises when a legislator allows his/her respect for The Bible to breach his/her duty to uphold The Constitution.
As someone who has voted almost exclusively-GOP his entire adult life, I have become pretty frustrated with recent instances where folks I voted for and helped place into office have turned a blind eye to (and even tried to bastardize) The Constitution in attempts to pander to those who would turn the U.S. into a theocracy if they had their way.
Buzz, We both agree that a theocracy is not the way to go. Perhaps, I misunderstood where (or if) we disagree. Just to clarify my position:
I am a member of a religion whose God called homosexuality an “abomination”. Others may harbor a different opinion. I hold no grudge against persons who do not belong to my religion. I feel they have that right and I have that right. But I do not feel that I should be censured for teaching my beliefs to my children and insulating them from those with whom I disagree.
I guess I wouldn’t do very well in Massachusetts where schools teach acceptance of homosexuality despite the wishes of parents.
In no way, shape, or form do I impose my heterosexuality on those outside my family. However, I’m called “judgmental” if I don’t embrace homosexuality. It is called “hate” if I say it. However, I won’t be apologetic.
I choose to exercise my religious freedom and my freedom of speech. I respect the rights of others to do the same – even if I disagree.
Bottom line: I don’t want my children to have homosexuality spoon-fed to them in grade school. Is this promoting a theocracy? Is it too judgmental? Am I just a religious zealot? Where does that put me as far as picking up my Bible and putting down the Constitution?
[...] a recent article published by Georgia’s own SWGA politics the author submits an interesting query for the [...]
How about this for a solution that both Libertarians and conservatives can live with. The government should not regulate marriage and should stop taxing and otherwise discriminating for/against people based on marital status. Churches would be free to decide who can get married and who can’t, and there would be no legal ramifications of marriage either positive or negative.
Divorce would also be regulated by churches. Property disputes resulting from divorce could still be regulated by the courts just as it is now.
The government should also not tell private employers who should or shouldn’t be extended employment benefits. If an employer wants to offer benefits to a spouse, fine. If not, that’s fine too. To keep the government out of the issue altogether benefits should only be offered to the government employee, not their spouse. The spouse and/or other dependents of government employees would be covered by benefits from the employment of the spouse or privately purchased.
Then if two men want to get married they can go to the Little Purple Church of the Flaming Rainbow and do so without government endorsement or prohibition. And if I want to go to the Southern Baptist Church down the road that would not allow such an abomination under any circumstances I can do so. I would not be forced to accept their definition of marriage and they would not be forced to accept mine.
Suits me UGAgrad. Religious freedom is about freedom – not restrictions.