More

Massachusetts Sues Feds Over Defense Of Marriage Act

DENISE LAVOIE   07/ 8/09 05:54 PM ET   AP

Marriage

BOSTON — 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.

Massachusetts is the first state to challenge the federal law. Its 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.

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 lawsuit focuses on the section of the 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 defendants named in the suit include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the federal government.

Brian Camenker, leader of MassResistance, a group opposed to gay marriage, criticized Coakley for challenging the federal law.

"The federal government has a perfectly legal right to define marriage," he 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.

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, declined comment on the lawsuit itself, saying the department plans to review it. He noted Obama "supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits."

Supporters of gay marriage predicted that other states where same-sex marriage is legal will also challenge the federal law.

"Every state has the right to determine who it will allow to marry, and the federal government always respects those decisions by states ... except in this case," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

"(Coakley) is going right for that vulnerability in the law," she said.

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.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

BOSTON — 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 D...
BOSTON — 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 D...
Filed by Susan Crile  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 190
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
08:45 AM on 07/09/2009
Let's vote on it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
06:03 AM on 07/22/2009
Let's first vote on whether you get your constitutional rights.
08:29 AM on 07/09/2009
way to go, massachusetts! lgbt community and supporters, consider massachusetts for your next vacation!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blkbtrfly1
07:45 AM on 07/09/2009
Hmmm...that's something you don't see often.

Nice photo.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:05 AM on 07/09/2009
Did Camenker explain WHY he thinks the federal government has the right to define marriage, despite history and the constitution both saying otherwise?
photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
07:33 AM on 07/09/2009
Brian Camenker has never let facts stand in the way of his irrational obsession with fighting gay rights. He has gathered a fringe group of loonies into MassResistance, an anti-gay group that has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
photo
StevenKeirstead
Photographer and Biologist who happens to be gay.
10:49 AM on 07/09/2009
I should say that asking Brian Camenker for his views on equality in gay marriage rights for some sort of "journalistic balance" is like asking a segregationist what he thinks of interracial marriage. It is quite sloppy journalism. This is not like interviewing people who are for or against higher taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Opti
02:55 AM on 07/09/2009
createrian: "There is no scientific evidence to support people are born g.ay or str8. Most scientific experts believe it is a combination of genetic, environmental and social factors that contribute to se.x.ual attraction. If it was 100% genetics, then all identical twins would show matching s.exual orientation, but not all do."

I am so tired of the deliberate psuedoscience that ignorant bigots use to justify their hatred.

Identical twins, in fact, have a much higher probability of sharing the same sexuality than any other group; even when raised in different environments from birth. This is because they have the highest potential for ACTIVE genes in common. The same genes will NEVER all be turned on at the same time.

Go spend $50,000 to clone your cat.
12:26 AM on 07/09/2009
I'm glad Massachusetts is stepping up to this, but I hope they dig in and really fight this as a state's rights issue. I believe that the reason the Obama camp filed in support of DOMA was to prevent a hearing on States Rights, and allow the legislative and executive branches to continue passing laws and enacting policies that overrule or ignore rights that are explicitly reserved to the states and the people in the Constitution. This could lead to a domino effect of illegal but convenient laws and policies getting thrown out. Like the laws against drug possession. Or everything the CIA's done in the past fifty years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
12:19 AM on 07/09/2009
See, this is what I have been talking about. This is politics at the highest level. This case is timed perfectly. It will hit the supreme during the first year of Obama second term. It will win, 5-4 or better if we can move Kennedy out and put in a progressive. But more importantly, by the time the case hits, the LGBT community will have reach a mendoza line in the number of states necessary for a court ruling. Excellent. By the way, when you get a repeal of DOMA make sure all the married couples in those states sue for denial of benefits during the time this law was in place. :-) See, on a crazy day a ray of sunshine falls. Oh, and I heard Rep Patrick Murphy is going to walk the DADT bill through congress the way Jim Webb is walking the crime bill through the senate. Excellent work.

J
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
1dogs2
07:32 AM on 07/09/2009
"Perfectly timed"? "If we can move Kennedy out and put in a progressive?" Sounds like more than a little magical thinking there.
10:39 PM on 07/08/2009
Regardless of what happens with this, it's important to remember that gay marriage is an absolute inevitability.

It is undeniable that every generation has been increasingly tolerant and accepting of homosexuality. I am 24, and the majority of people my age actually support gay marriage. When the next generation or two reaches voting age, the people on the other side won't have the votes anymore. It's simple mathematics.

This is how it has always worked in America. Progress has always been slow. Values shift over time, from generation to generation. With every civil rights struggle, more and more people in succeeding generations come to support a particular cause or particular right. No civil rights struggle has ever been lost in America. Not one. It's not going to start now.

Will gay marriage be legal nationally in the next 4 years? Doubtful. Next 20? Inevitable. And in the interim, more and more states will enact such civil rights on their own. The bigots have already lost, they just can't see the writing on the wall.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
12:15 AM on 07/09/2009
I hate counting my chickens before they hatch but I tend to agree with you. This case is solid. It is a winner with just one change on the court. Move Kennedy out and put in an Obama nominee and it wins.

J
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
1dogs2
07:34 AM on 07/09/2009
Why not dream more expansively? Why not move Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito out?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
1dogs2
07:37 AM on 07/09/2009
They DO see the writing on the wall and will fight against the inevitable with greater and greater desperation. And it won't be pretty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:49 PM on 07/08/2009
Think for a moment what a bad precedent could be set if we allow the federal government to trample on the rights of the states and of the people for no good reason. The federal government should not be viewed as granting powers to states. Rather, as the 10th amendment says, the powers that the people did not delegate to the federal government through the constitution are retained by the states or by the people.

Now you will argue that no state has the right to have marriage requirements that differ from those of another state. But that is simply false. Must all states have the same divorce laws? Must Oregon and Nevada agree?

The federal government should leave the states alone unless the states themselves seek to destroy the federalist nature of our union. DOMA was necessary to preserve federalism from the attacks of those who would seek to impose nationwide a perverse libertine (and illiberal) definition of marriage.

So we have a wholesome notion of diversity across the states. They are not all forced to be the same.

And DOMA upholds this healthy liberty by permitting states to differ one from another. DOMA recognizes the value of both community and individuality. DOMA understands the founders' concept of federalism, and DOMA is profoundly democratic.

That is why the Democratic Party should embrace DOMA, as President Clinton did.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
10:16 PM on 07/08/2009
Bad precedent? You mean like the feds legalizing interracial marriage? Was that wrong?
12:10 AM on 07/09/2009
That was a court ruling.
10:30 PM on 07/08/2009
1. And DOMA DOES NOT upholds this healthy liberty by permitting states to differ one from another and DOES NOT understand the founders' concept of federalism as it is the only time the Fed govet says one state doesn't have to recognize a right of another state. DOMA violates the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

2. DOMA DOES NOT recognizes the value of both community and individuality by refusing to grant the 1200 benefits to SSM couples as it does to different sex couples. In this way the community of a state that recognizes SSM is NOT being recognized and neither are the individuals who engage in SSM. It also violates the 5th Amendment Due Process clause.

But don't take my word for it...listen to the President Ob*ama's former law professor here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-rubysachs/obamas-law-professor-says_b_211854.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:38 PM on 07/08/2009
I think you are using the word "right" too expansively. For instance, in some parts of Nevada prostitution is legal. Shall we therefore declare commercial fornication to be a right that must be recognized and accepted throughout Nevada and throughout the United States?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Demarcus Jackson
Community College Psychology Prof in the South
09:38 PM on 07/08/2009
This is a complex legal suit, but I think I like it. As a Gay man, I have been somewhat upset over the relative lack of progress on major Gay Rights issues by the Obama Administration. Now, I don't wish to jump on the gay bandwagon of beating Obama over the head just because he isn't moving fast enough on issues like the defense of marriage act or the don't ask, don't tell policy. Still, I believe his administration's push for repealing these policies should be a bit more forceful and immediate. But, I have always maintained that Gays (or any minority group) should not wait on the president to do all the work. I don't know how successful Massachusetts will be with regard to this lawsuit, but it is evidence of the "not waiting" that I referred to. States and the People should expect Congress to get their act together on these issues and to work hard toward repealing anti-gay policies.
10:05 PM on 07/08/2009
Hear, hear!
07:59 PM on 07/08/2009
Could one of the moderaters explain why my earlier comment questioning Martha Coakley's motivation was not published. I can't believe that it violated the comment policy. I live in the state and there are all kinds of political maneuvering going on over the past week or two. Please reconsider. Thank
10:44 PM on 07/08/2009
Don't bother asking for logic or reason when it comes to the moderation on this site. I love this place for the news, but they have the most bizarre and inefficient commenting system I have ever seen on the internet.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:53 PM on 07/08/2009
It is pretty hypocritical to try to have it every which way. On the one hand, the leaders of the gay rights movement claim that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution requires all states to permit gay marriage, overriding any contrary marriage requirements or prohibitions in the individual states. The people who drafted and approved the 14th amendment would regard this as ridiculous, but that does not matter to advocates of a profoundly antidemocratic method of constitutional exegesis.

On the other hand, the same gay rights leaders argue that DOMA improperly interferes with states' rights and the U.S. constitution's guarantee that each state shall give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

What this is all about is simple. It is all about promoting sodomy, changing people's opinions so that they no longer regard it as sinful, and bullying opponents into silence or submission.
08:10 PM on 07/08/2009
I'm so glad I come back to see hilarious things like this. Sinful? We have a separation of church and state for a reason -- to keep nut jobs like you from turning this country into Iran.

In terms of states and same-sex marriage, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.) requires that states recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Including those legalizing same-sex marriage.

14th amendment comes down to two things:

*Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and the Right to Privacy.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
08:35 PM on 07/08/2009
The 14th Amendment should properly guarantee equal rights - that includes marriage rights for same sex couples.

The law was written to uphold a principle. You don't get to decide to apply it selectively based on mind-reading of the bigotry of now dead people.
07:26 PM on 07/08/2009
If Obama is smart, he will balk any non-legislative attempts to overturn DOMA. Any act seen as subverting the will of the people will result in a backlash, and he can't afford it.

I will be part of that backlash.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montyb
09:17 PM on 07/08/2009
For the sake of the rest of our survical, may you be blessed with infertility. Praise the great FSM
06:14 AM on 07/17/2009
Eesh. Yeah. Sorry, but you're already too late.
photo
WoodyCPM
Now what?
02:51 AM on 07/09/2009
Don't be ridiculous, the "will of the people" is subverted all the time in the United States. Where are you from?
06:15 AM on 07/17/2009
How descriptive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chriss0114
the meanderings of a madman
05:04 PM on 07/08/2009
if reliegious freaks want to keep marriage defined as they do in a religious way then marriage should not have legal standing and governemtn should get out of the matrimony business

otherwise, it is pure discrimination and denying equal protection under the law not ot permit gay marriage permitting the same tax breaks and other benefirts provided heterosexuals

there is no threat to heterosexual marriage from gays

all this "lifestyle" choice talk is hogwash--people are born gay or straight --roughly over 10% of people as well as the rest of the animal population bears this out

and you can throw in that about 1.7% of the human population are born intersex

God (for those who believe) makes all of us, gay, straight and in-between and wires us the way we are

and if you wish to go "Old Testament" then put down that bacon wrapped scallop, you tattooed short haired pork eating adulterer who thinks that being under the "New Testament" makes all that OK but being gay is the exception
05:24 PM on 07/08/2009
There is no scientific evidence to support people are born g.ay or str8. Most scientific experts believe it is a combination of genetic, environmental and social factors that contribute to se.x.ual attraction. If it was 100% genetics, then all identical twins would show matching s.exual orientation, but not all do. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/massachusetts-sues-feds-o_n_227921.html#
11:45 PM on 07/08/2009
Who cares if it's a choice or not.

Did you choose to be Christian, or were you born that way?

Should religious freedom be protected any differently depending on the answer?

Personally I think most bigots were born Christian (or whichever religion) and have never thought about it since.
05:39 PM on 07/08/2009
There is no definitive scientific evidence that suggest people are born str8 or g.ay. Most scientist believe it is a combination of genetic, social, and environmental factors that determine se. xual attraction . If it was 100% genetics, identical twins would both show the same se.xua.l orientation but that is not always the case.
05:59 PM on 07/08/2009
False assumption on your part.
08:39 PM on 07/08/2009
Well there is no scientific evidence there is a god, but under the United States Constitution, a person choice of religion is protected.
04:40 PM on 07/08/2009
I'm all for challenging DOMA at the Supreme Court level but with Bush's boys on the bench, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and that known homophobe Scalia, I don't give this challenge much chance of succeeding.
04:41 PM on 07/08/2009
I think that's part of the reason they have framed this as a "states rights" issue. Most GOOPers are all about "states rights" vs "fed rights"...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
teron678
A Pessimistic Optimist
04:55 PM on 07/08/2009
Not when it comes to these stuff ...
photo
Ponderus
Enriched with lanolin.
06:21 PM on 07/08/2009
Actually, I think Roberts may have had a few logs in his cabin, if you know what I mean.
09:38 PM on 07/08/2009
HAHAHA LMAO