Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights

[jimmy olsen]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted here yet. What say you lawtalkers, does the suit have a chance?

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE56768520090708

Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights
Wed Jul 8, 2009 3:50pm EDT

By Jason Szep

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' attorney general filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the U.S. government that seeks federal marriage benefits for about 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have legally wed in Massachusetts.

The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying the law denies "essential rights and protections" to same-sex couples who have married since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings in 2004.

The federal law interferes with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage," according to the suit filed in federal court in Boston. It calls the law "overreaching and discriminatory."

The suit is the latest skirmish over gay marriage in the U.S. federal court system after handful of political filmmakers led by a Democratic consultant crafted a gay rights challenge in May that they hope will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

It also follows a separate lawsuit filed by a group of married gay couples in Massachusetts in March that also challenged the same portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

Although Massachusetts and five other U.S. states have authorized gay marriage, same-sex couples who are legally married in those states cannot access the federal protections and programs granted to straight married couples.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, denies gay and lesbian couples access to more than 1,000 federal programs and legal protections, gay rights advocates say.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who filed the suit, cited several benefits denied gay couples, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.

"We view all married persons equally," Coakley told a news conference.

Before 1996, states had the right to define marital status under state sovereignty, the suit said. Massachusetts wants the right to "define marriage within its own boundaries," it added, noting that this would not affect other states.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus toward gay and lesbian people," the state's 32-page complaint said.

Forty-two U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting such marriages, including 29 with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

[MadImmortalMan]

WTF the gay thread is off the first page?? Marty is shirking his responsibility.

[Caliga]

WTF the gay thread is off the first page?? Marty is shirking his responsibility.

I now question his sexuality. 

[alfred russel]

WTF the gay thread is off the first page?? Marty is shirking his responsibility.

I now question his sexuality. 

And he was just a couple of days away from convincing me.

[Faeelin]

My Legal Note! I was gonna write about what Massachussetts v. EPA does to DOMA!

[Admiral Yi]

I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.

[Faeelin]

I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.

What was his again? Have a prostitute stay over?

[Martinus]

I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.

Barney Frank is full of shit.

[jimmy olsen]

I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.

Elaborate.

[Ed Anger]

WTF the gay thread is off the first page?? Marty is shirking his responsibility.

Marti has to get his marching orders from those gay websites and podcasts. Without guidance, he is totally useless as he is a trendwhore.

[Admiral Yi]

Elaborate.

He said not to take it to the Supreme Court "while that homophobe Scalia is still there."

[DontSayBanana]

The annoying thing is that all it would take is revising 1 USC 7 from this:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

...to this:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between two spousal partners, and the word "spouse" refers only to a party of a legally binding marital contract.

...or similar.

All this ruckus is over one sentence which would never pass the test of the fourteenth amendment, anyway.

[Martinus]

Elaborate.

He said not to take it to the Supreme Court "while that homophobe Scalia is still there."

Well, Scalia deserves to be shot, and not just for his homophobia. He is the worst SCOTUS judge in decades.

[Admiral Yi]

All this ruckus is over one sentence which would never pass the test of the fourteenth amendment, anyway.

Which one's the 14th?

[DontSayBanana]

Which one's the 14th?

Equal protections. Also, it's shaky on the 10th; the government leaves marriage to the states because it's not under the umbrella of the federal mandates, so (my guess is that) the federal government should identify the state marital status and approve or deny benefits based on that; even if DOMA is legal, it should only apply to DC residents who have no state government or residents of other US territories.