[Bushwacker777]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lorianne]

Why does it make you cringe?

[calex59]

Excuse me. Mass voted to retain marriage as between men and women, the COURTS of Mass overturned that. So, they don’t have a point because the courts overturning a referendum by the people is not an upholding of the 10th amendment. Rather it is a usurpation of power by the Courts.