The Showdown: Mass Sues the Federal Gov't Over Gay Marriage

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

"They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they are gay or straight," Coakley said at a news conference to discuss the lawsuit.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states—Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa—have legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in Maine said Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures to put the state's pending law on the November ballot for a possible override.

The Massachusetts lawsuit challenges the section of the federal law that creates a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the lawsuit states.

The Justice Department had not seen the lawsuit and cannot respond until it has a chance to review it, spokesman Charles Miller said.

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriages and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize them.

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law, although gay rights activists criticized the administration last month after Justice Department lawyers defended it in a court brief. White House aides said they were doing their jobs to support a law that is on the books.

This is the second lawsuit filed in Massachusetts challenging the law.

In March, the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders claimed the law discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as health insurance and pensions.

In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.

The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether the law should stand.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99AESS80&show_article=1

now, if i understand correctly (and i probably dont) if Mass wins then only DOMA would be over turned, which would result in federal recognition of gay marriages performed in states where it is legal. it would not legalize gay marriage nationally. nevertheless it will be interesting to see where the feds go with this as it should give a good indication of where they would go with gay marriage in general.

also on a side note, itll be interesting to see if maine voters overturn gay marriage as california did this past election.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They still have to win.

If they lose, then the only way to change things will be for Congress to get their heads out of their asses, which could be decades from now.
 
Massachusetts will never let the federal government interfere with something they can tax.

They're arguing this strictly on the grounds that the law violates the 10th amendment, that any power not granted to the federal government by the constitution is reserved to the states or to the people. And also that it violates Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, which limits how the federal government can attach conditions to funds going to the states.

The its discriminatory, "its not fair" argument is being made in GLAD's lawsuit and not here.
 
Anyone else think the "Defense of Marriage Act" should probably apply to divorces and not gay marriage?

Just sayin'.

~HotShotX
 
Of course not! Applying it to divorce would ALSO affect the bigots! Being against gay marriage means you must be against something that does not apply to you at all!

PRAISE JESUS.
 
So, now, suddenly, everyone's in favor of state's rights?

For the record, I don't think legal marriage is something a state should be able to define individually. It's a legal contract between two consenting adults and individual states should not be allowed to sexually discriminate against individuals who wish to enter into this private arrangement.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, now, suddenly, everyone's in favor of state's rights?

For the record, I don't think legal marriage is something a state should be able to define individually. It's a legal contract between two consenting adults and individual states should not be allowed to sexually discriminate against individuals who wish to enter into this private arrangement.[/QUOTE]
who needs rights? we've got the government looking out for us :)
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
also on a side note, itll be interesting to see if maine voters overturn gay marriage as california did this past election.[/QUOTE]

Err... yeah, but we weren't even suppose to be able to have a vote on it to begin with because it's unconstitutional or something I forget because this damn issue is all over the place... :roll:
 
I dunno. President Camacho is pretty strong. Since the new president is black, he may have to lay down his pimp hand on MA. Though with his spendthrift wife, he may just bend over and take it.
 
The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts
signature_damoo.jpg
:)
 
While I support gay marriage, I wish Coakley would focus more on putting away all the corrupt politicians and state workers robbing the state blind with their ridiculous pension loopholes and bribe-taking.
 
Seems to me that if Massachusetts won, nothing would change gay marriage wise, but it'd take away power from the Federal Government.

So that basically means they have no chance of winning at the highest level.
 
bread's done
Back
Top