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
QuoteMassachusetts 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)
WTF the gay thread is off the first page?? Marty is shirking his responsibility.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2009, 03:17:47 PM
WTF the gay thread is off the first page?? Marty is shirking his responsibility.
:yes: I now question his sexuality. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 03:19:48 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2009, 03:17:47 PM
WTF the gay thread is off the first page?? Marty is shirking his responsibility.
:yes: I now question his sexuality. :mad:
And he was just a couple of days away from convincing me.
My Legal Note! I was gonna write about what Massachussetts v. EPA does to DOMA!
I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 03:36:55 PM
I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.
What was his again? Have a prostitute stay over?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 03:36:55 PM
I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.
Barney Frank is full of shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 03:36:55 PM
I guess they didn't listen to Barney Frank's suggestion.
Elaborate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 08, 2009, 03:17:47 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
Elaborate.
He said not to take it to the Supreme Court "while that homophobe Scalia is still there."
The annoying thing is that all it would take is revising 1 USC 7 from this:
QuoteIn 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:
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 08, 2009, 04:00:14 PM
All this ruckus is over one sentence which would never pass the test of the fourteenth amendment, anyway.
Which one's the 14th?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 04:17:19 PM
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 08, 2009, 04:27:50 PM
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.
Isn't there a precedent from when the government refused to recognize Mormon polygamous marriages, though?
Quote from: Martinus on July 08, 2009, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
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.
Anyone who prevents homosexuals from being happy is OK with me.
The complaint appears to be here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17209369/2009-07-08-Doma-Complaint
Or here: http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/2009_07_08_doma_complaint.pdf
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2009, 02:59:11 PM
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted here yet. What say you lawtalkers, does the suit have a chance?
It looks to me like the Commonwealth has teed this one up quite nicely, from an admittedly cursory overview. DOMA was always obviously based on nothing more than anti-gay sentiment, making it a bit shaky from the beginning, and the 10th amendment hooks allow the Commonwealth to get righteously fired up over being conscripted by the big bad federal gummint. There's something here for everyone to love.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 08, 2009, 05:08:12 PM
Isn't there a precedent from when the government refused to recognize Mormon polygamous marriages, though?
Not necessarily. That had to do with the number of signatories in the marital contract; it didn't actually address the
characteristics of any of them.
The state's interest seems pretty attenuated to me.
It would seem to me that while the state can define as married such persons as it chooses for its purposes, the federal government might still be free to choose to use another defination for its purpose of determining eligibilty for federal benefits.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 09, 2009, 02:53:45 PM
The state's interest seems pretty attenuated to me.
You don't think states have an interest in seeing their contracts enforced?
Quote from: dps on July 09, 2009, 07:59:04 PM
It would seem to me that while the state can define as married such persons as it chooses for its purposes, the federal government might still be free to choose to use another defination for its purpose of determining eligibilty for federal benefits.
Not based on marital status, since they have no authority to determine it in the first place. They should defer to the state governments to determine that status, except for residents of Washington, D.C. and the handful of insular areas (Puerto Rico, Guam, et al).
Even if you take the tack that the federal government is an employer that is not answerable to any state government, you come up against two problems: that DOMA should only apply to Title 5, not the entire US code, and that there's still an equal protections clause question to be addressed- the contract is only valid if countersigned by a partner of the "correct" (opposite) gender.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 09, 2009, 10:07:48 PM
Not based on marital status, since they have no authority to determine it in the first place.
that is so by tradition and custom, but there is a decent argument that the commerce clause provides otherwise.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 09, 2009, 08:41:03 PM
You don't think states have an interest in seeing their contracts enforced?
What is the contract enforcement problem at issue here?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2009, 11:00:04 AM
that is so by tradition and custom, but there is a decent argument that the commerce clause provides otherwise.
How so? A lot of what I've seen indicates the opposite; that the commerce clause is what's used to uphold the states' right to determine marital status.
I also think we're dancing around it. I think where Faeelin is coming from is that in federal programs that rely on marital status, it could be seen that DOMA is being used to improperly override state marriage certificates.
I'm breaking it down for my own purposes this way:
Question 1: by refusing to honor marital contracts based on gender, is DOMA a violation of Amendment XIV?
Question 2: given that the commerce clause was used to establish marriage as a realm of the state government, does using its own determination for citizens with valid, state-issued marriage certificates violate Amendment X?
Question 3: given that the federal government is an employer as well, does it have the authority to use marital determinations outside of Title 5? Also, does it have the right to make that requirement of its employees, or would that also be a violation of Amendment XIV?
I am firmly of the opinion that DOMA violates the 14th amendment.
I also think Mass ought to have standing to sue.
However, given the current state of federal law on the matter, it is not yet clear to me that a court would ultimately rule that they do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2009, 11:16:10 AM
I am firmly of the opinion that DOMA violates the 14th amendment.
I also think Mass ought to have standing to sue.
However, given the current state of federal law on the matter, it is not yet clear to me that a court would ultimately rule that they do.
:yes: I see. Sounds like I've been arguing the same side, then. I really ought to remember to factor human nature in more often. :blush:
Not to be Captain Obvious or anything, but why bother with any of this at all? Just get Congress to repeal it. Surely Obama won't veto.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 10, 2009, 04:16:59 PM
Not to be Captain Obvious or anything, but why bother with any of this at all? Just get Congress to repeal it. Surely Obama won't veto.
Why would Congress change it? Also, Obama does hate gays, although not as much as I do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2009, 11:00:31 AM
What is the contract enforcement problem at issue here?
MA has to recognize every states' marriages; but the reverse is not true. Why should its citizens be disadvantaged?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 10, 2009, 04:16:59 PM
Not to be Captain Obvious or anything, but why bother with any of this at all? Just get Congress to repeal it. Surely Obama won't veto.
Easier to go through the courts. Blue dogs won't vote for repeal because they'd lose too many votes from old people.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 10, 2009, 10:16:24 PM
MA has to recognize every states' marriages; but the reverse is not true. Why should its citizens be disadvantaged?
The rules of recognition are the same for all states.