Same Sex Marriage vs Defense Of Marriage Act

With all else that's going on in the news many people may have missed an interesting story about a federal court case that is being ruled upon this week.  A same sex couple legally married in Massachusetts.  Because of the Definition of Marriage Act signed into federal law by Bill Clinton they were not eligible for filing duel income taxes as a married couple, they were not eligible for federal health benefits etc.

This case perfectly highlights from both sides of the isle the problem with our federal government expanding and having too much power.  By creating federal tax codes and laws around "marriage" the federal government has entered into defining what should have been left as a religious union between two people.  If your religion or faith allows two men or two women to call themselves married then who are any of us to say otherwise.  Likewise if your faith says marriage is a man and a women then you shouldn't be forced to acknowledge unions you don't believe in but your refusal to acknowledge another couple as married should make no difference to them as their claiming they are married should make no difference to you.

The problem comes when it comes to federal laws in which "married" couples have different privileges the federal government gives including tax breaks and federal level benefits.

This problem is increased ten fold by the fact that now some states have allowed same sex marriage while others have passed laws disallowing it.  For the federal government to accept it they would have to overwrite the 10th amendment regarding state rights by forcing states who have chosen otherwise to accept same sex marriage.

As long as there are federal laws surrounding marriage this continues to stay a no win situation for both sides, either states lose their rights to define their own laws which would set very dangerous president or same sex couples who are legally considered married lose out on federal benefits given to other married couples which likewise can be argued is a violation of equal protection under the law (14th amendment).

Perhaps this will serve as a wakeup call to both sides that we need fewer federal laws and to lessen the power of the federal government.  Or as usually happens, the federal government will look to solve this with new laws that create new and bigger problems then the ones it's solving.