Obamacare and it's impacts on gay marriage

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, I was just thinking about the DOMA cases (possibly) going before the court, and I've held for a long time the idea that federal involvement in marriage is unconstitutional through a combination of Article I and the 10th amendment, therefore, it would be ruled unconstitutional.

But then a random thought popped into my head... since the government gives tax credits to married couples, could the Obamacare ruling be used as precedent to say that defining marriage is a way of exercising Congress's tax powers?

[Sbane]

Politically speaking, it would be beneficial to the Democrats if Gay Marriage was not ruled the law of the land by the Supreme Court. Same with Roe v Wade. Anyways that's not what you were asking.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Inks, all the Xth Amendment does with respect to gay marriage is that it prevents the Federal government from forcing the States to adopt any particular definition of marriage.  DOMA doesn't force any State to define marriage in any particular way.  It explicitly calls for each State to able to define marriage as it likes and establishes a definition that the Federal government will use for itself.  So if DOMA is overridden, it won't be on Xth Amendment grounds, but on Equal Protection grounds that not only make gay marriage recognized at the Federal level, but in all 50 States at the State level.

In the event that DOMA were not overturned but instead was repealed, it would be within Congress' power to grant a Federal same-sex marriage that would provide Federal benefits to same-sex couples that live in States that do not recognize same-sex marriages.  So with respect to using Obamacare as precedent, it could be used to say that States don't have to provide State funded benefits to people in Federal same-sex marriages, nor would they be required to act as the medium by which Federal benefits are provided to people in Federal same-sex marriages.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But where in Article I does it give Congress power to define marriage at the federal level?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But where in Article I does it give Congress power to define marriage at the federal level?

Article I Section 8 Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I should think that it is blindingly obvious that if Congress chooses to offer certain benefits for being married, that it is free to set whatever definition of marriage it chooses to without depending upon the States to do so.  Certainly, it has never been held that States are the only ones who can determine what a marriage is.  Indeed, in Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877), relating to common-law marriage, the court held: "Marriage is everywhere regarded as a civil contract. Statutes in many of the states, it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right." (emphasis added)  That case held that unless a state statute expressly denied the legality of common-law marriage, it was to be held as valid for the purposes of the law of that state.  It also pointed out that some states had expressly forbidden common-law marriages whereas others had not, hence explicitly recognizing that there was no requirement for uniformity in the definition of marriage.

If some states had passed a law defining tomatoes as fruit for their own laws and others had passed a law defining tomatoes as vegetables for their own laws, do you think the Supreme Court Nix v. Hedden should have ruled that whether or not a vegetable was a fruit or vegetable for the purposes of Federal law depended upon which state the tomatoes were being imported to?  I think not.  Where different States may have different definitions of certain terms of law, it both prudent and proper for the Federal government to come up with its own definition for its own use.  That is just as true for civil contracts for the importation of tomatoes as it is for civil contracts establishing marriages.

If DOMA is overturned, it will be on grounds that make same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states.  There is no states' right argument to be made here, only a personal right argument.

[Barnes]

The Necessary and Proper Clause gives the Congress a very large (obviously) swathe of power to enforce and determine its laws.  In our society, marriage is a completely legal entity, and if the federal government decides that, for their purposes under the N & P Clause, that it can include homosexuals, well, then there is really nothing stopping them.

If DOMA is overturned, it will be on grounds that make same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states.  There is no states' right argument to be made here, only a personal right argument.

I agree completely.  If Congress determines that marriage is irrespective of gender, then it would be their duty to ensure that it is applied fairly to the citizens of all the states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Necessary and Proper Clause gives the Congress a very large (obviously) swathe of power to enforce and determine its laws.  In our society, marriage is a completely legal entity, and if the federal government decides that, for their purposes under the N & P Clause, that it can include homosexuals, well, then there is really nothing stopping them.

If DOMA is overturned, it will be on grounds that make same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states.  There is no states' right argument to be made here, only a personal right argument.

I agree completely.  If Congress determines that marriage is irrespective of gender, then it would be their duty to ensure that it is applied fairly to the citizens of all the states.

No.  You are missing my point.  If Congress decides to repeal DOMA on its own and goes beyond a repeal to provide a mechanism for same-sex marriage that would not force the States to recognize same-sex marriages.  Congress cannot tell the States what to do and the States cannot tell Congress what to do, however the Constitution may tell them both what to do about same-sex marriage and if so it will be the Supreme  Court that tells them both.

[memphis]

If the feds want to get their nose out of the marriage business, there are lot of issues beyond taxation. Citizenship. Federal pension benefits. And so on. The feds have to decide what constitutes a "legitimate" marriage. And does another state have the right to shut that thing down when a given couple cross state lines. It's an important legal question. And the feds can't just be an ostrich and hide their heads in the sand. Congress and President Clinton had their say back in the 1990s. Now it's time for judicial review.