Massachusetts sues feds over definition of marriage

Mercury News ^ | 07/08/2009 | Denise Lavoie

[Valpal1]

BOSTON — Massachusetts is suing the federal government over a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

State Attorney General Martha Coakley filed the lawsuit today in federal court in Boston. It says the federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit.

[Bushwacker777]

This makes me cringe because if we follow the 10th. Amendment then Massachusettes does have a good point.

[Diogenesis]

[CA Conservative]

This makes me cringe because if we follow the 10th. Amendment then Massachusettes does have a good point.

Actually, no. DOMA does not infringe on MA's ability to define marriage within the state. DOMA simply says that the feds only recognize marriage between a man and a woman as valid for federal purposes (taxes and benefits, etc). I also allows other states the freedom to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. How does that infringe on MA's rights?

[misterrob]

You could take this on both sides. It should be up to the states but on the other hand, what happens in the case of employees when a company has to recognize a relationship in one state but can ignore it in another? Which state prevails?

[trumandogz]

Yes, it is tough to promote the 10th and then say that a state should not sue the Feds for imposing laws that should be left to the state.

[manc]

I believe that DOMA states it is up to states to decide so how exactly is that telling MA and anyway how about her letting the people vote on the issue in that state before she goes and does this.

The people got enough signatures for it to get it on the ballot
the legislature said 1st time to let the people now vote
the 2nd time around , guess what the GOV and Pelosi etc went to MA paying off legislatures to vote no on the people to vote

After the legislature did not let the people vote certain legislatures who changes their vote to suit the homo’s got money for their area

MA has no right what soever to tell anyone about homo marriage as they will not let their own public vote

until they do then the whole issue is a sham.

[freedomwarrior998]

This is absurd. DOMA doesn't prohibit the sodomites in Massachusetts from recognizing pretend "marriages." DOMA only exercises Congress's power under the FF&C Clause and defines marriage for purposes of FEDERAL law.

[DannyTN]

I thought the DOMA just defined marriage for federal purposes. Mass can define it anyway they want. But Mass doesn’t get to order the Feds to change the Fed definition.

[Jeff Chandler]

This is a tough one. The kind of issue it takes a wise Latina judge to decide.

[manc]

DOMA states that MA has that right to define their law on this, so DOMA is not infringing on MA

the only ones who are being infringed is the voters of MA as they were not allowed to vote on this even though they got enough signatures on the ballot

lets call this what it is and that is MA promoting their sham sick marriage and another attack angle on DOMA

[Diogenesis]

Romney usurped the Massachusetts Constitution. Let's let him usurp America's, too? [/s]

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[manc]

EXACTLY

seems some do not know what DOMAN is all about but I expect the homo trolls to come back out on here to back MA up

Hey MA let your voters vote on the issue hey before you go about doing this

[pissant]

Mitt’s legacy.

[Valpal1]

Exactly!

I think this is simply a strategy to discredit DOMA with negative and inaccurate press to undercut public support for it while it wends it’s way through the federal court system.

They hope that by the time in ends up at the USSC that the Obamanation has repacked the court with gay friendly activists who will be happy to twist the law into knots and invalidate it.

[OneWingedShark]

>This makes me cringe because if we follow the 10th. Amendment then Massachusettes does have a good point.

Then we’ll use that ruling to back up MORE 10th Amendment resolutions and positions. It is a double-edged sword, let them use it.

[trumandogz]

They are setting up an Equal Protection case for the SCOTUS.

[manc]

correct
seems some do not know what DOMA is about

this is another angle to attack DOMA working in sync with the homo agenda and special interests up there

Can MA and the north east please just leave the union, please please please.

All conservatives not republicans from there are welcome to move out, in place of you moving out we’ll send our homo’s illegals, child molesters and loony brain dead sheep left wing idiots.

[Valpal1]

Mitt’s legacy.

Run, Sarah, Run!

[trumandogz]

The are aiming to beat the Feds at the SCOTUS on an EPC claim and they will likely win.

[fwdude]

Hey, all you idiot naysayers: It’s now time for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Actually, it’s too late, thank you.

[manc]

the way things are going I will not be surprised at anything anymore.

I love America I really do but I used to have to live up there for a bit, my wife is originally from there and I got her out of that state because of how it was going, the homo marriage and not letting the voters vote was her final straw.
We both knew that MA would do things like this and use this marriage as a platform to push even more on adoption, bar exams, teaching in schools , cross dressing etc

We were not wrong.

We we up in CT not too long ago and I swear being in the north east was like being in another country.
The prices, the attitude, the way they drive, the ignorance etc took us aback

If that north east left us I would lose no sleep now and let them have their liberal homo illegal loving utopia but on one condition.
That is they can never come back here after they screw their new country up.

They want to repeal the don’t ask, well I am told all the time it is their own business and their private life so why the hell do they want to overturn this as right now they have to keep it secret in other words their own business

[fwdude]

The CA lawsuit is already being fast-tracked to the USSC. If they rule for the continuance of traditional marriage, this MA case is toast.

[manc]

so true

the homos and sickos know this is their best chance of getting their agenda passed.

Move every polygamist there to MA and let them sue for their right to marry loads of women now.

What is the betting the homo’s say no they cannot do this.

[manc]

USSC
could you explain how it would be toast please.

Asking because I am not sure on this and if what you say is true then it would bring a smile to me on this crap day I’m having

[skully]

Can we give Mass. back to England??

[Stormdog]

“This makes me cringe because if we follow the 10th. Amendment then Massachusettes does have a good point.”
I agree, but I must point out that the jackals in the Massachusetts Legislature refused to allow a referendum question dealing with this on the ballot. Regardless of whether one was for or against, the jackals decided that the people of Massachusetts were not qualified enough to decide the question for themselves. I cannot in hindsight say which side would have prevailed, this being Massachusetts and all, but even California at least got it onto the ballot.

[B Knotts]

We knew all along this would happen. That's why the only way to protect marriage is with the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[trumandogz]

In our lifetimes, there will not be any states that break from the Union. So At least for the next 100 years NE Social Liberals and SE Social Conservatives are going to have to fight each other for their rights and beliefs.

[manc]

sad but true

my only hope is that my 3 young kids get to have an America which is not all screwed up.

[CodeToad]

Sodomy is no basis for marriage. What’s next, sheep, small dogs, three people, kissing cousins??

[Pikachu_Dad]

String em all up. We will save billions on retirement benefits.

[manc]

that is what grates me over MA

They got enough signatures to have it on the ballot
the legislature voted first time to let them vote as they should do.
The 2nd time the special interests, and the full force of the Dem party like Pelosi went in and bribed legislatures to change their vote

result the people of MA were not allowed to vote on the issue.
The state might have just said do not bother doing all that work as we will never let you vote on this as we have too much invested for the homo brigade.

My wife is from there and I lived there for a bit (aarrgghh) and from what we got to find out is that the voters would have voted no to this.

I heard that a poll was done lately and that more people said they would vote against homo marriage now then back then as many have seen how the homo brigade have forced this into the schools, laws, onto very young kids etc.
The marriage was a platform as this is now to get DOMA overturned.

[manc]

correct
that is why they went after the sodomy law
then marriage
then adoption
then into schools, even 5 year olds being told that it is alright to cross dress etc
They used MA as a stepping stone, to get it to spread on to neighboring states.

Now they are looking at the federal level while they have bozo in.

this is all based on sex like you said, they say love but I love my children and dog but do not feel the urge to have sex with them.
They say it is their private business so why overturn the do not ask policy, why have those freak parades etc

[freekitty]

These people left the reservation a long time ago.

[Stormdog]

“I heard that a poll was done lately and that more people said they would vote against homo marriage now then back then as many have seen how the homo brigade have forced this into the schools, laws, onto very young kids etc.”

You don’t know the half of it. Go to http://www.massresistance.org/
and prepare yourself for what you’re going to see because this is heading your way.

[K-oneTexas]

Valpal1 might well have a point with the 10th Amendment.

Also, using the ‘Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, Each State to Honor All Others) ...

How do the Feds ensure all the laws of marriage are honored if they have set a standard. The Feds might have to enforce something they have taken a opposite position to. It wouldn’t set well with them or the State(s) laws that are not being honored in other States.

Plus, would DOMA exclude same sex marriages from receiving federal benefits? That would be against the Dems position on this subject and lifestyle.

It is a tricky question.

[rockabyebaby]

LMAO, great comment!

[fwdude]

I may be speculating, but the durability of DOMA is what is on trial, as well as the CA case, which snipes at DOMA. If the Supreme Court upholds the CA case (Prop 8), I believe DOMA will get a boost. At least, a precedent will be set, that “marriage” of anyone’s imagination is not a civil right.

[fwdude]

Question: If it’s overwhelmingly apparent that Dems in the state houses are going to force homo-”marriage” down everyone’s throat, and you say that MA folks are overwhelmingly against same-sex “marriage”, then why do the same Dem scum keep getting elected by these voters?

[Enoughofthissocialism]

Massachusetts leads the nation in the downward plunge to Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don’t think we will pull out before the fire and brimstone come.

[manc]

first thank you for your other answer

to answer this,
well that is a question I have been asked many times and wondered many times.
Now I had to live there for a bit and the misses is from there,
This is my observation and maybe mass mike along with others who are up there can speculate on this.

The media are the most biased I have ever seen anywhere in this world.
I have lived around America and different countries and the media up there named channel 4,5 and 7 are a disgrace.
When the homo marriage was going through there was nothing on the media until after it was too late.
I remember being in a pub in a place called charleston and the TV was on when the local news finally reported this and not one person in there of about 25 knew about this.

There is also the view I saw of many the residents of MA.
They are typical of my mother in law who do not get the news but also are firm Dems.
The older lot still think of the Dem party of the JFK party, they ignore many of the goings on.
For instance recently there they had a vote to reduce tax but the voters said no
why you ask
well the Dem party is o much in control along with the media that they told the people if they reduced taxes then the old would be cut out of their benefits etc
Thus the voters got scared and did not vote for lower taxes.

The mindset there is I have voted Democrat all my life bla bla
Look at the state it is a mess and yet they still vote for these idiots.
My mother in law did not even know about Barney franks little homo ring because of media black out and if they do cover it then the media spin it.

The Dems have such a monopoly in that state it is scary and now they are branching out to their neighbors.

I say this with all honesty to me going up there is like another country and if anyone wants to see what America will look like in 25 years under liberal lunatic agendas then they should go there.

Unions too have a monopoly there.
Read about the Irish Italian mafia wars, bulger etc.
The Kennedy’s needed control of the unions to get their lot elected so they chased out the Italians to RI.
The FBI clamped down on the Italians while ignoring the Irish who in turn the Irish tipped off the FBI.
Once in control of the unions they then gave out these contracts in exchange for votes.
The Kennedy’s set all this up and it has got worse.

sorry to harp on but it really is a long story on how MA got to where it was, with the union, media and their Dem power.

[Valpal1]

It's all about entitlement spending.

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.

[manc]

fell sick and every person on here and around this country should see that website

That is what America will look like if some go along with the usual “well I know a couple and they are nice who want to be left alone” course they do not see their new friends at their freak parades etc
Or the Govt should not get involved
Well this is not about marriage like on that website but a small platform to a bigger agenda, adoption, into schools to now teaching little kids fisting another man

sick sick sick

there sickos should be put back in the closet or told to seek mental help and not off another sicko perverted shrink

[manc]

MA should let their voters vote on the issue before doing this crap
MA has no respect to this as they took away the right to vote.

This is a platform to overturn DOMA while Bozo is in office, surely everyone can see this except the sheep.

This is about spreading their perverted forced on agenda to the country.

send every polygamist to MA and lets see if a religious organisation can have their kind of marriage, lets see muslims have their 4 wives

What is the betting the homosexuals and their perverted friends do not accept that

look at the website mass resistance and you’ll see how sick MA has become

[Lancey Howard]

This makes me cringe because if we follow the 10th. Amendment then Massachusettes does have a good point.

No it doesn't. Massachusetts has already seen fit to redefine the English word, "marriage". The state already went ahead and did it, so I can't figure out what that simple scumbag Coakley is suing for.

[Lancey Howard]

then why do the same Dem scum keep getting elected by these voters?

Why do you think the rest of thre country calls them "massholes"?

[Valpal1]

He’s sueing because the federal definition of marriage prevents gay MA citizens from getting their share of federal entitlement benefits.

[SuziQ]

The CITIZENS of MA have never had the opportunity to vote on the matter. Homosexual marriage was forced on us by judicial fiat of the Supreme Judicial Court. When the legislature, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, took the vote that would have given us the opportunity to cast our votes, the new Democrat Governor, Deval Patrick paid off, politically, the five Democrats who were on the fence. When they caved, we were screwed.

[Lancey Howard]

He’s sueing because the federal definition of marriage prevents gay MA citizens from getting their share of federal entitlement benefits.

Massachusetts gets the same federal entitlement benefits that every other state gets so, actually, the scumbag is suing for MORE benefits than non-pervert states get.