Posted on 07/08/2009 9:46:41 AM PDT by NMRed
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. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law."
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Anything like, “it depends on what your definition of is, is?”
Massachusetts.....the most God forsaken bastion of whining left wingers in the world.
LOL!
Watch out, activists. If a state can sue to have the Federal law overturned, that makes Roe v. Wade vulnerable in many states.
Actually, I don’t see in the constitution where the congress is permitted to make a law regulating marriage. It would seem to be covered under the 10th amendment, and reserved to the states, or the people.
MA did NOT define the definition of marriage. One Judge did and when the PEOPLE of MA wanted a vote on it, the Legislature said NO!
Massachusetts should change their state motto.
“By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty”
Should be changed to....
“I polish my neighbor’s sword”
Mass. is confusing or mixing ‘free love’ with already established socially accepted norms of marriage defined: a man and a woman.
Looks like Martha is trying to woo the Gay vote from Deval as the Dems smell blood in the water with Cahill running for Gov.
If you drive through Cambridge Massachusetts you can still spot the John Kerry for President bumper stickers on any given day.
“Watch out, activists. If a state can sue to have the Federal law overturned, that makes Roe v. Wade vulnerable in many states.”
Roe v. Wade is a decision of SCOTUS; Mass is suing about a piece of Federal legislation. A success by Mass in overturning what may well be, like it or not, an unconstitutional Federal statute will have no effect at all on the viability of Roe v. Wade.
No matter what side you're on, everyone can understand it.
What happens for instance if the definition of the word marriage is changed, how does that affect the marriage contract. My original point was to look how the word regulated has been redefined and you see what the repercussions are.
“If you drive through Cambridge Massachusetts you can still spot the John Kerry for President bumper stickers on any given day.”
I lived 2 blocks from Harvard Square during college. My favorite time of the year was winter. That is when the Harvard professors couldn’t get their Saab’s and Volvo’s started ;-)
Do I seem to recall, last year, during the campaign, someone declaring that “words have meaning”? Nah, probably just my imagination.
Two points. First, the federal government has involved itself with marriage at least as far as the rulings overturning miscegenation laws.
Second, DOMA does not interfere with state marriage laws. I merely defines what the Federal government will recognize as valid marriages for purposes of federal law (taxes and benefits, primarily), and allows other states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
It's covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section 1:
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.
Good points and well stated
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.