Mass. Sues Feds Over Marriage Definition

Challenges U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, Says It Unconstitutionally Forces States to Discriminate

(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.

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 new 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 it should stand.

[fdx22]

Before Christianity, the ancient Romans were pagan and legalized all forms of sexuality. Today's politicians seem to strive to be like the ancient Romans.

[Aldymac]

It is true that all men and women were created equal, its the choices they make that erode that equality.
I have seen the agenda of the homosexual crowd over the last thirty years grow into the biggest "me first" agenda on the planet, the idea that they want to be exalted and have spiecial rights, or rather, more rights over the rest of society is a pretty sick agenda. They want to shove that agenda down everyones throats and they use money to corrupt polititions to get that agenda made into law to force "equality", exaltation, or, whatever else they can buy.
As far as "seperation of church and state", it does not exist in the Constitution, unless Obama has had it put in there by hiding it in the new laws he gets passed without any of the democrats reading those new laws. That can be termed as misrepresentation by government officials.

[Yeah-Me]

by Aldymac July 8, 2009 7:48 PM PDT
As far as "seperation of church and state", it does not exist in the Constitution, unless Obama has had it put in there by hiding it in the new laws he gets passed without any of the democrats reading those new laws. That can be termed as misrepresentation by government officials.
=====================
Ummmm... 1st Amendemnt:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In fact we have Thomas Jefferson to thank for the phrase we now know as "Seperation of Church and State" through his "Wall of Seperation" Letter... http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[earlysaid]

This is pathetic. A state and every other bozo wanting to sue over anything and everything. Having a policy in your state is what counts. Fighting to make the federal government be the same is wacky.

[barbaram99]

It is Miss America and not Ms America. I am a born New Endlander and Not 2 men and not 2 wethe constution of this nation saids what marriage is..It is bewteen a man and woman. Not 2 men. Not 2 women. If we were meant to be one gender it would have been so. There are 2 genders male and female. I see no need for me to marry at my age.I can not have children. Marriage is for a man and woman to have children and pass on the family name. Yhatis what my late Dad taught us. I was not raised in the church. He was a Vet.I have the same rights as everypne. If 2 persons of the same gender wish to live together and share a home. fine. Children need a Mom and Dad. I don't base my life on the bible.

[poorstraightpeople]

I'm gay, I've been with my partner for 6 years, and we each have master's degrees and make six figures. There is nothing that straight people have that I want. I don't need to use the word "marriage" to make me feel whole. All the people on here talking about the sacred unity of marriage, I wonder how many of you have been divorced?:) You keep talking about how homosexuality is a sin, My partner and I are actually on our way out the door to spend a few weeks at out beach house.

[caeric]

Those of you commenting from a religious viewpoint, have a care. Please remember that there are *many* religions on this earth, and a number of those religions either don't speak about homosexuality or accept the differences and diversity in us all without qualm or question.

You may believe that your religion is right and the one and only true way, but so too do others believe the same about their own religion. In the end, religion is a human construct, an attempt, and ONLY an attempt, to understand God. No religion has it completely right, and anyone who claims otherwise also claims to fully know the mind and will of God - which is flatly impossible.

So don't be too quick to comment based on your religion, for religion should be a very personal thing - your own practiced by you and for YOU, not for others.

As there are many religions, no one religion has primacy on the word marriage. No religion may define it for another. In addition, as the term "marriage" in common nomenclature has come to include the civil institution as well as the religious observance, no one religion should attempt to define marriage for a government that incorporates a doctrine of separation of church and state.

For those referencing the Biblical account Sodom and Gomorrah, please understand that the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint may not be correct. Much debate exists, and of the theories put some scholars believe that the true 'sin' referenced was that of a 'lack of charity and ill treatment to strangers' (http://www.religioustolerance.org/). In any event, correct or not, it is a single view among a myriad.

What is without doubt is that the Bible known today is a text compiled by the Church / Church leadership over the centuries. It did not spring into being whole and given. It is also a text that has been translated from an original that is not understood, especially in early context, by many of its adherents. Any understanding assumed by those adherents is simply what they have been told rather than what may actually be the original intent.

Returning to the question of government acknowledgment, the United States operates under the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, and has a Constitution that requires equality under the law for ALL citizens. Subsequent decisions have determined that separate but equal is NOT equal, and that marriage is a fundamental right. Simply put, and with the understanding about the word 'marriage' provided above, any adult legally capable of providing consent has the undeniable right to marry any other adult legally capable of providing consent.

Such a decision affects everyone, because in any instance that the civil rights of one group can be defined, delineated, and/or restricted by another group who enjoys those exact same civil rights, the civil rights of ALL people are in jeopardy.

As for what is natural and not natural, understand that homosexuality has existed in all cultures throughout time, no matter the name by which it was known or the view held by each particular culture or society. It also exists among the animals. It has always existed and will always exist. It is a completely natural, if somewhat rare, expression of humanity in all of its wondrous diversity.

[armyoftwelve]

A marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Something that has been established in US law since colonial times.

The political/social monoculture here in the northeast lacks common sense. I'm sure that this issue will boil until the USG takes action and makes it a Federal issue. Do it President Obama, go beyond DOMA and make marriage what it is and always has been--between one man and one woman at the Federal level.

While you're at it, you can also ban marriage for those under 18.

[Yeah-Me]

Yep... and in Colonial times, blacks were supposed to be slaves. Look where we are now. We have evolved socially since then. I know it must frighten you, but evolution (even on a social level) cannot be stopped. No matter how much people hold on to old doctrines.

Change is in the air... It's one of those inexplicable forces of nature.

So... where will you stand? Will the doctrine you so cling to evolve along with the times? Much like how polygamy and slavery are now looked down against. Remember, the bible espouses both also, as well as wives being their husbands property.

[Yeah-Me]

Wow... just WOW.

The people here actually using the bible to claim that homosexuals are not equal citizens and would condone laws to promote that are quite simply mind boggling.

And here I was thinking that was one of the driving principles behind the seperation of church and state, where laws could not be dictated by religious scripture/dogma.

It truely makes me question what brand of Christianity you really practice? Is it the same brand that condoned slavery from our nations past? Pity...

Regardless, I'll keep looking forward to the time when we are treated as full citizens of our nation. Why? Because I DO believe in what was said in the Declaration of Independence were it states we are all created equal as God's creation.

[pw08-2009]

Now we're seeing the REAL reason why the gay community wants gay marriage. It's not to have a recognized union as they claim, but the ability to get more and better benefits.

[lloydbest1]

The premise that sexual orientation has an intrinsic moral value is flawed.
Denying a right that a person of one gender preference has that anyone else of a different gender preference enjoys as a given does have an intrinsic moral value. It is flatly and frankly wrong!
Using religion or scripture as a defense for stigmatizing gay individuals and denying them the same validation straight folks have as a birthright does have an intrinsic moral value. It is flatly and frankly wrong!
Enacting laws and/or issuing decrees that relegate those who practise the "alternitive" lifestyle to a second class status does have an intrinsic moral value. It is flatly and frankly wrong!
Any system of cultural values that permits any group to be singled out for special discriminatory treatment threatens all of us.

Mr. Obama, you need to repeal DOMA. All it takes is a stroke of the pen.

[g-gfather]

Lets see now,same sex marriage allows for two husbands,or two wives,or is it two it,s. So where do we stand. So who and where are
mother and father? All to common a question today isn't it.

Get with it people lets all do the dinosaur dance, lets all do the dinosaur dance,wheeee!!!!! Not even sure if we're people anymore.

For the children. Great-Grandfather

[tomanyt]

blog_fever2 Eventually, gay couples will die off with no remnant.... Homosexuality is not natural because they can not pro-create. That is a gift from God. ... LOL. About they only way gay couples would die off is if straight couples stopped having gay children.

[blog_fever2]

Having gay children? wow... get real. Where you born gay?

[tomanyt]

cs4466
So you have to be a church member to be married? When did that happen? LOL poor backward fool. What about all these athiests and agnostics that get married? How is that a religious construct? ... Who came up with the idea a marriage first, government or the church. I believe it was the church. That's what makes it a religious construct... you backward fool.

[blog_fever2]

Correct. Marriage is accepting a covenant in the sight of God... everything else means nothing.

[Aldymac]

Untill two gay men can have a child between themselves as well as two women with no help from the opposite sex, there can be NO equality with Heterosexual couples.

[blog_fever2]

Eventually, gay couples will die off with no remnant.... Homosexuality is not natural because they can not pro-create. That is a gift from God.

[45ford]

... and heterosexual couples with no kids will also "die off with no remnant"... so that makes heterosexuality unnatural because they were created to pro-create but for one reason or another they didn't or couldn't... those are gifts from God too right which makes folks aren't entitled to all civil rights because they defied God's intent right?

keep rifling through your nonsensical pile of manure

[blog_fever2]

by 45ford July 8, 2009 2:30 PM PDT
keep rifling through your nonsensical pile of manure
****************************************************
Don't get mad because the truth comes out. You do not have to believe it for yourself, but that doesn't make it any less true. Homosexuality is an evil spirit in my opinion.

[Yeah-Me]

by blog_fever2 July 8, 2009 2:46 PM PDT

Don't get mad because the truth comes out. You do not have to believe it for yourself, but that doesn't make it any less true. Homosexuality is an evil spirit in my opinion.
===============
And let me guess, you're another one of those who believes that homosexuality can be exorcized too, aren't you?

[tomanyt]

Marriage is a religious construct, not a legal one.

[cs4466]

So you have to be a church member to be married? When did that happen? LOL poor backward fool. What about all these athiests and agnostics that get married? How is that a religious construct?

[Dmc1184]

You tell the Bible thumpers to go look at the bible, all men are created equal. Well, ever heard of Sodam and Gomorrah? Two civilizations where homosexuality was rampart, was destroyed. Or, how about the non jews that inhabited the Promised Land, they were all executed, women, chidlren, elderly. So...tell the bible thumpers to look at the Bible again. not all people are created equal.

If the Homosexuals really want their rights, they can go to Germany, Germany loves sexual Taboos.

[blog_fever2]

Let's hope grace continues to protect this nation so we do not end up like Gomorrah.

[cs4466]

What is marriage?
Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.

Married couples have over 1,400 rights, protections and responsibilities such as:
Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.
What is a civil union?
A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate and Unequal?Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.

[blog_fever2]

By your argument cs4466, instead of making a stink about "marriage" it would be more effective to amend the "civil union" definition. I can guarantee you that that will not satisfy homosexuals.... they want the term "married".

[Yeah-Me]

by blog_fever2 July 8, 2009 2:17 PM PDT
By your argument cs4466, instead of making a stink about "marriage" it would be more effective to amend the "civil union" definition. I can guarantee you that that will not satisfy homosexuals.... they want the term "married".
=====================

Would you be willing to give up the term of "marriage" in regards to federal/state documentation, and go with Civil Unions for all of our great nations citizens?

And leave the term of "marriage" as solely relating to a religious practice?

[gramto8]

Re-read the part about Sodom and Gomorah. You will find that Lot was going to give his two daughters to the men of Sodom for those men to rape. Genesis 19:8 So much for the good guys.

[blog_fever2]

by Yeah-Me July 8, 2009 1:11 PM PDT
OK... take a step back away from your bible, and look at this from the point of view that ALL people are created equal
***************************************************
That's not true...

[45ford]

you're right. there are gay & lesbians who are better people than you for various arbitrary reasons. so for those reasons, you are only entitled to a portion of the civil rights afforded to others.

[armyoftwelve]

You don't get it, he/she doesn't HAVE to "step away from his/her Bible"
No one has to exclude their religious beliefs from public policy discussions any more than you have to exclude your godless beliefs.

You might think they're stupid, but you're just plain evil.

[AttentionDeficit]

gijoe: on the side of the devil? keep your imaginary friends and foes out of civil law.

[Yeah-Me]

Well... If Obama won't start taking a real stnd (beyond these baby steps) on DOMA, I guess it's up to the states to do it for him.

[speakinup22]

Good luck with that. Barry is THE most liberal President in the history of this country, and even he found it politically repulsive enough to refrain from keeping his promise.

How's that Hope and Change workin out for ya'll ?

[blog_fever2]

If the gay marriage law is passed... divorce, fornication, adultery, and adoption should all be illegal.