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.