Gay Marriage and federal spending controls

Great Debates
1

Hi all,

The first thing to remember, is that I’m Irish.
Not American, but Irish.
So there may be a very simple, very obvious explanation for this question, that those of you born under a federal system would see instantly and I wouldn’t.

Essentially my question is this: Can States, by altering their laws, entitle themselves to higher amounts of Federal funding?

This arises from an argument put before the Supreme Court that DOMA infringed on States Rights to define marriage as they see fit.

The Federal government takes money from States and spends it, normally in ways that do not equally benefit each State (some states have more welfare recipients / military contracts than others).

Normally, as I understand it, the criteria for claiming that funding is set by the Federal government - for example, the criteria for Medicaid is the same in every state.

However, marriage is subsidised by the Federal government, yet, States are seeking to change the long-standing definition, in ways which allow them to claim more money as of right from the Federal Government. (Though obviously that isn’t the primary, or even the tertiary, motivation). The Federal Government sought to stop this with DOMA, applying a standardised test for the receipt of marriage benefits across the 50 States.
To take it to a farcical level, if the States are free to define marriage in a way which is binding on the Federal Government, then if a State legalised marriage between a man and his cattle, marriage could be turned into a farm subsidy; unless the Federal government has the power to say ‘no’ and apply it’s own definition of marriage.

Surely when it comes to the disbursement of Federal money, either through direct spending or tax cuts, the power to set the objective criteria rests with the Federal government and not the States themselves?

2

A CBO study from 2004 found gay marriage is actually a net benefit to the federal budget. The effects of the “marriage tax” and the fact that married people are more likely to get financial support from their spouse rather then relying on federal programs ends up (slightly) outweighing the costs of extending spousal benefits to SS recipients, Federal workers, etc.

But as to your larger question, I’m pretty sure there’s no bar to states altering their laws to qualify for more or less federal funding. Indeed, the Feds make a lot of federal funding dependent on a State changing their laws to qualify.

3

The Federal Constitution provides enumerated powers for the Congress to control. That which is not so enumerated are explicitly reserved to the states or to the people (9th and 10th Amendments, which admittedly have not had a lot of respect).

The Constitution does not explicitly provide that Congress may regulate marriage. Ergo, the regulation is reserved to the states.

So long as the Federal government chooses to provide different* (discriminatory?) treatment on the basis of marital status then the feds are stuck with the states deciding what counts as marriage. It is not up to the feds to define.

  • Providing for estate tax exemptions for married persons but not single persons. Providing medical benefits to spouse of a federal employee but not to an unmarried partner. etc…
4

The SCOTUS would beg to differ. See Loving.

5

Restrictions on marriage already differ considerably from state to state. Two areas in particular, age of consent and consanguinity restrictions, are different in each state. In each of those cases, the Federal government recognizes the state law as determinitive. In many states first cousins can marry, but in some they cannot, and in others they can marry only if they are over childbearing age. The Federal government recognizes first cousin marriages in states where they are legal, and provides any related Federal benefits, and does not recognize them in the states where they are not legal. This is precisely the reason the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, because some states were allowing same sex marriage, and absent such a law, the Federal government would have been required to recognize them.

6

Loving v. Virginia was a due process and equal protection decision under the 14th Amendment. It still did not give the feds the right to determine who is married. It set a criteria upon which states could not deny marriage.

Suppose, hypothetically, that a certain state decided to get out of the marriage issue entirely for all persons regardless of race, ethic group, sexual orientation, etc.. State X decides that they will no longer issue marriage licenses and will amend their state’s laws to remove different treatment under the law based upon marital status. No more spousal rights of inheritance. No estate tax exemption, etc…

While its citizens could travel to state Y to get married, if they so chose, it simply would not matter to state X as marital status has would have zero bearing on how state X treats its citizens.

I doubt SCOTUS would say the feds have the authority to step in and force state X to issue marriage licenses. Such right to regulate is not in the realm of federal authority.

7

As a side point, this is not correct. The federal government taxes individuals and private entities such as corporations and trusts. By and large, it does not receive revenue from the states.

8

It is my understanding that the SCOTUS has issued grants of certiorari in several cases revolving on the issue of state and Federal powers and limitation in recognizing marriage.

Perhaps we can defer to them in the matter?

When they grant certiorari, they generally think there is an issue of law requiring their attention.

I’ll guess their opinion on the matter outweighs those of strangers on a message board

9

Organization of family life is within the states’ “police power” - an area of law reserved to the states.

I think what the OPs missing is the basic idea that the Congress can act only within its enumerated powers in making laws, and all the “fallback” or “catch all” un-enumerated powers belong to the states via the 10th amendment. Sorry I can’t link because I’m on a phone, but you can google enumerated powers of congress and find out about it.

For example, the federal government can’t set a national definition for “burglary” that applies to every state, or a national definition of divorce, or a national punishment for drunk driving that each state must impose. It lacks the authority to do that. Similarly, when the states make laws on those topics, they can’t violate the US constitution. (sings: that’s what we call checks aand baaaalaaaances).

This is an extremely complicated topic. But, basically the OP made the same argument made by one of the parties. It’s not totally crazy but it seems likely to fail. We’ll see!

10

Yes, but the federal government can’t choose arbitrarily between groups. If the interest being protected is the health of the treasury, it must be able to advance some nexus between that interest and the means it chooses to pursue it. That’s what we call rational basis review.

It’s a stretch - to say the least - that refusing partner benefits to same-sex couples was ever an articulable reason for Congress to pass Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (though it has been argued as one after-the-fact).

It would be like denying school milk subsidies to special needs children on the grounds that it would save taxpayers money.