We've been in a kind of legal blitz on the Defense of Marriage Act recently. But, in the three lawsuits filed, yesterday's challenge might have the highest chance of success.
The first of these challenges, Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al., filed in March by the Massachusetts-based group GLAD, argues that same-sex spouses are denied specific monetary benefits from public programs like social security under DOMA.
Not long after, Smelt v. United States of America was a filed: a lawsuit that attacks DOMA on every front possible including its violation of due process and equal protection, the right to free speech, right to privacy, right to travel and its discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
But yesterday, the Attorney General of Massachusetts filed a complaint that chiefly argues DOMA's violation of state's sovereignty over the definition and regulation of marriage.
The genius of this complaint is that it takes a conservative argument -- that liberal states should not be permitted to impose their tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of the country -- and turns it around to benefit a state that really pioneered gay rights in the U.S.
Even a conservative justice would support the notion that federal encroachment over those few areas where states have sovereign jurisdiction is unconstitutional. In this case, that principle supports, at the very least, limiting the application of DOMA when it affects state programs with federal funding.
If a conservative justice chooses to oppose the argument put forward by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, then their logic could be used in the future to justify federal enforcement of equal rights on those states that oppose same-sex marriage. If state's no longer have absolute jurisdiction over marriage, a liberal government can interfere with a conservative state's policies.
Coakley's lawsuit will likely be joined with Gill et al. and the two will proceed as the most viable challenge to DOMA (many think that Smelt threw too many punches and doesn't have the same institutional support as the Massachusetts suits since the lawyers involved were not working closely with Lambda Legal and other LGBT litigation groups with long histories in the gay rights movement).
It also has the support of Senator John Kerry. Kerry, a lawyer by training, argued way back in 1996 in the Senate, that DOMA was unconstitutional.
His reasoning then, that the full faith and credit clause would be threatened by a law that refused to recognize marriage rights potentially given by some states and not all, has not been popular in modern law suits. Perhaps this is because the trend on hot button social issues has been towards state sovereignty and full faith and credit undermines that sovereignty.
Hence the genius of Coakley's argument.
We can all look forward to the slow, grueling process that is the march to the Supreme Court. And hopefully, by that time, a number of new states will join the same-sex marriage party.
But Coakley's suit is significant. It is a smart, novel attack on a law that is clearly unconstitutional, but also has the support of a waning, yet still significant portion of the American population.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
Tax money whomever you vote for won't change a thing they're after your money period.
A few things I've noticed about same sex marriage, the first country to allow it was the Netherlands and guess who opposed it? Right "the good Christians", the second was Belgium, no need to guess the Roman Catholic church opposed it. Now in India they just decriminalized homosexuality and the people to oppose it are the Hindu, the Muslims and the Christians, forget Mumbaï Muslims and Hindu are brothers against the homosexuals, and who opposes gay marriage in Amerika? Who is governing Amerika? As for Obama, my mother use to say "even when a country is totally bankrupt they'll still fight tooth and nail to be president, who would want to become president of a bankrupt company?"
The answer lies in my first sentence you'll pay for it...
DADT is a great thing in case they reinstate the draft to go protect the interests of rich Afghan landlords, one can always claim to be gay and skip it.
The only good thing I know is going to happen is that despite Obama and the priests with their obsolete beliefs same sex marriage will prevail and maybe one day the poor of America will not be discriminated anymore because they're not poor by choice but by government decision.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-benedict/divorce-arianna-style-c-2_b_228771.html
I'm curious about something and perhaps you can clear this up for me. Is SCOTUS allowed to base a decision on something that is not included in a complaint? Specifically, as I've mentioned, it seems to me that since the federal government does not refuse to recognize a marriage where the bride is under 16, which in many states is illegal, it cannot refuse to recognize a SSM performed in Mass.
I don't see that included in the "Commonwealth" complaint. Can SCOTUS rule that way anyway or must it stick only to the points raised in the complaint?
States already have latitude within abortion rights.
I also hope - as an organizer with Pink Pistols - that concealed-carry permits issued in one state are recognized as valid in others, on the same grounds. That way, a couple which is able to defend themselves in their home state would not be deprived of that right when they cross a border to a state which is more hostile to their rights. That falls under the "privileges and immunities" clause, I would think.
On the other hand, Boies and Olson seemed sincere, and they would know better than I whether there are five votes there for marriage equality.
Bush went on to undermine our standing in the eyes of the world. The Supreme court had already undermined my faith in justice and fairness.
Only the nomination and election of Barack Obama restored my faith in America. I did not believe it possible.
It's disgusting what the right wing has done to this country.
In fact, I would argue that the IRS should eliminate the "Married filing joint" and "Married filing separate" tax return statuses and replace them with the only necessary statuses for such people: "head of household" for the primary breadwinner (defined by gross income earned) and "single" (for the non primary breadwinner defined likewise). The only problem is what to do with all those tax deductions, credits, etc. for children of marriages that would no longer be recognized by governments....
I keep telling my neighbor that since my taxdollars are his childs welfare I want the kid to mow my lawn. The grass is pretty tall.
Why distinguish between the two?
Been a long time since I looked at the tax code, but the last time I checked, taxpayers are allowed to claim deductions for anyone who is financially dependent on them. Irrespective of relationship or marital status. There are age restrictions but they are modified by health or student status.
If not, it can be easily re-written to allow for dependent exemptions.
No problem at all. And eliminates the entire controversy. Except for the SS part and I'm hopeful we can alter that to only include dependents rather than "spouses."
1. The principal motivation for DOMA was a dislike of homosexuality and homosexuals. There is no evidence that traditional heterosexual marriage is any stronger in states that do not recognize gay marriage (like Rhode Island) than in states that do (like Massachusetts). In other words, there is no evidence that recognizing gay marriage does anything to undermine traditional heterosexual marriage. We just don't like gays.
2. Although it was argued that recognizing gay marriage would cost the federal government money, a subsequent study by the Congressional Budget Office when Congress was controlled by Republicans concluded that the opposite was true -- that recognizing gay marriage for federal purposes would actually raise significant revenue.
3. I have analyzed DOMA as applied to the federal income tax and concluded that the CBO study probably *underestimated* the costs to the federal government of failing to recognize gay marriage. See Seto, The Unintended Tax Advantages of Gay Marriage, 65 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1529 (2008), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=850645. Significant federal tax planning opportunities are available to gay couples that are denied to heterosexual couples, solely because of DOMA. We tax gays less because we don't like them.
4. In the long run, hating people is not a durable foundation for law. It's also not nice.
Thanks for the scholarly work.
Hospitals have commonly asked if a person visiting is "family" or just a "friend". A gay person tells the staff that they want to visit their partner. Depending on how homophobic the staff or the hospital administration is, the partner may not be allowed to visit their loved one. I have read stories of gay people showing a medical power of attorney form and still being refused visitation. Check out this story if you doubt that this is going on in our country:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/lambda-legal-sues-florida.html
Sounds like a Roy Rogers movie, "Hey, podnuh, how about we ride over yonder and see what them injuns is up to?"
Lame, lame, lame. . .
Anyone who claims he was denied visitation based solely on his sexual orientation is not telling the entire truth.
Lambda is not a credible source. It has a specific agenda and the truth is not part of that agenda.