Explain how the issue of marriage, specifically same-sex marriage, illustrates the complexity and intricacy surrounding the issue of federalism. Use specific examples from Texas government and its relationship with the federal government to support your response.

What will be an ideal response?

An ideal response will:
1. Explain how marriage and divorce laws are the responsibility of state governments. These include setting the minimum age to marry, deciding who is eligible to marry whom, and determining rules for divorce and the allocation of marital assets. In 2005, Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between "one man and one woman" and prohibited the state or any political subdivision from creating or recognizing any "legal status identical or similar to marriage."
2. Address how, despite this result from the 2005 vote, several of the more heavily populated cities and counties in Texas provided a variety of same-sex partner benefits, which then-Attorney General Greg Abbott declared in violation of the state's constitution in 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) through United States v. Windsor at the same time and declared that denial of these benefits to legally married same-sex couples was unconstitutional and violated the Fifth Amendment. The Obama administration ordered the military to provide equal benefits to same-sex couples, with Texas initially stating that it would not use state facilities or state employees to process benefits for same-sex couples in the Texas National Guard. Eventually, the Pentagon and state officials reached a compromise wherein eligible dependents could apply for benefits at state facilities as long as the Department of Defense provided the necessary personnel, equipment, and funding to do this.
3. Explain how, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that marriage was a fundamental right guaranteed to same-sex couples under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Court required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a nonbinding opinion supporting officials who refused to grant same-sex marriage licenses to perform these marriages, using the First Amendment as a basis for protecting the religious beliefs of these state officials. The Texas Senate tried but failed to pass a bill that would have allowed county clerks and judges to legally recuse themselves from such ceremonies based on their religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court also addressed the religious rights of individuals by ruling in favor of a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding because it violated his freedom of religion and speech (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).
4. Explain how another issue of complexity and concern addresses the use of taxpayer funds to provide benefits to legally wed same-sex couples. The Texas Supreme Court decided in Pidgeon v. Houston that gay and lesbian public employees are not entitled to the same government-funded benefits as those provided to opposite-sex partners. The city's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in late 2017.