The search for federal "rights"

This story struck me as an interesting illustration of how we've forgotten a basic tenet: Rights are "unalienable," bestowed by "the creator," not generated by a beneficent ruler. Read this and think of the assumptions regarding where rights come from (and notice the seamless use of the words "rights" and "benefits" as if they are synonyms:

Civil union benefits to end at state line

Many federal rights are still not granted

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts considers Stacey and Jessie Harris married. But every April, the Harrises get a reminder the legal recognition their state extends to same-sex couples like themselves goes only so far. Although they can file joint state tax returns, they must file their federal income taxes separately.

"It makes me more conscious that the federal government doesn't recognize my marriage," said Jessie, who lived with Stacey at the Jersey Shore for several years before they returned to their native Massachusetts in 2005.

Thousands of same-sex couples in New Jersey will soon learn what the Harrises already know. Although a law signed Dec. 21 by Gov. Jon Corzine promises same-sex couples who form civil unions "all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities" that flow from marriage, it comes with a giant asterisk.

It really means all of the state benefits of marriage. Like Massachusetts, New Jersey is powerless to grant same-sex couples the benefits that federal law bestows on married heterosexuals. And federal law does not recognize same-sex partnerships, regardless of whether they are labeled "marriages" or "civil unions."

"There are a plethora of federal rights that are significant that remain denied," said Elizabeth Cooper, a professor at Fordham Law School.

Thomas Prol, a Lyndhurst lawyer who co-chairs the New Jersey State Bar Association's committee on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights, said the U.S. General Accounting Office has tallied 1,138 sections of federal law in which benefits depend on whether a couple meets the federal definition of a marriage: one man and one woman. The most important affect federal taxation, immigration, bankruptcy, Social Security, veteran's benefits and federal workplace protections for pensions and family leave.

Stephen Hyland, a lawyer with offices in Princeton and Westmont, said same-sex couples who form civil unions will have "significantly less rights in total than heterosexual married couples."

I'm not really commenting on the substance of the issue, just intrigued by the shift we've experienced in where rights come from. A Bill of Rights was written to limit the extent to which the government may impose on our basic freedoms, but we have become so used to those impositions that we think of the government as the source of those rights. 'Tain't so.