Marriage Rights Should be Determined by the States

I would like to open by stating that, in my opinion, laws are a reflection of the moral values of society. The United States is a large nation with many different shades of morality. Collectively the people of New York have different values than the people of Missouri. In Missouri same-sex marriage is banned, but in New York it's legal. This is because the people of Missouri do not want to redefine marriage, and in a popular government they have every right to make that choice. If the Federal Government were to pass a law that banned or legalized same-sex marriage across the nation they'd be forcing the values of one portion of our society on the whole nation. Don't misunderstand me, there are certain universal rights and values that should be maintained by the Federal Government. For example, state mandated discrimination should not be tolerated. However, on this issue it is not a matter of discrimination-although that may play a part in the decision making process of some people. To better explain this I will return to the examples of Missouri and New York. Religion plays a much bigger part in southern society, thus marriage is seen more as a religious institution in the south than it is in the north, where marriage is viewed more often as a secular union between two people. We have no right to force Missouri to redefine marriage, because to the majority of their populace it is considered a religious union. Other states have circumvented the religious argument by instituting civil unions-unions between same-sex couples that give similar or identical rights to same-sex couples that marriage gives to heterosexual couples. Another thing to consider is States' rights. In the United States we have two sets of laws, state laws and federal laws. The founding fathers recognized that what is best for New York is not necessarily best for South Carolina, and vis versa. Under the 10th Amendment States were delegated any powers not granted to the Federal Government or prohibited from the States in the constitution. This included the right to issue marriage licenses as they saw fit. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 wrote into law the rights of the States to determine whether or not they wanted same-sex marriage. "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. " Unfortunately DOMA also defined marriage as being between a man and a woman on a federal level, which technically defined what marriage is for the entire country. "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. " In my opinion DOMA should be upheld, but Section 3 (the section that defines marriage) should be repealed. By allowing the Federal Government to define marriage we as a country are less likely to reflect the will of the people in our laws. New England has no right to force same-sex marriage upon Texas, and Texas has no right to force same-sex marriage upon New England.