Posted on 07/09/2009 7:44:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The federal Defense of Marriage Act which protects the traditional definition of marriage may be facing its biggest challenge yet. Massachusetts filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the federal law.
"We're taking this action today because, first, we believe that [DOMA] directly interferes with Massachusetts' long-standing sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents," said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Massachusetts was the first state in the country in 2003 to legalize marriage for same-sex couples. It is now also the first state to challenge DOMA, the 1996 law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from another state.
The lawsuit argues that despite same-sex marriage being legal in Massachusetts, the more than 16,000 gay and lesbian married couples in the state are still denied access to "critically important rights and benefits" because of DOMA.
The New England state is specifically challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
"Congress's decision (in 1996) to enact a federal definition of marriage rejected the long-standing practice of deferring to each state’s definition of marriage and contravened the constitutional designation of exclusive authority to the states," states the lawsuit.
Congress overstepped its authority and undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, the state further argues.
Rejecting the argument that DOMA interferes with the state's authority, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins contended that DOMA was enacted with the "primary purpose of protecting the right of states to define marriage as they see fit so that no state can force marriage redefinition on another state."
"Now, the Massachusetts Attorney General is expanding the fight against traditional marriage by demanding that federal taxpayers from all 50 states subsidize same-sex 'marriage' benefits in Massachusetts," Perkins said in a statement Wednesday.
Two other lawsuits have been filed against the federal DOMA.
Last month, the U.S. Justice Department moved to dismiss one of the lawsuits filed by a married gay couple.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said they will review the latest case. At the same time, Miller also reiterated President Obama’s pledge to repeal DOMA.
Perkins of the conservative family group is calling on the Justice Department to "fulfill its constitutional duties and continue its defense of DOMA against such frivolous lawsuits."
"We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions," he added.
According to a May 2009 Gallup Poll, most Americans (57 percent) remain opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage.
To repeal DOMA would mean that the “full faith and credit clause” takes effect. A same sex marriage in one state will have to be honored in another state.
And all this happens while the Pervert Mafia in this state...both elected (Governor,legislature,etc) and “civilians”....fight like hell to keep the question of homosexual “marriage” off the ballot.They do this because poll after poll here show that pervert “marriage” would lose...and lose convincingly.
Sorry folks,I’m from Ma. and I admit I come from a state of RETARDS!
Coakley... Coakley... why does that name sound familiar?
There is no intellectual or legal basis to deny polygamy or gay marriage.
ONLY a constitutional amendment can stop this train...and I don't see that happening either.
The founders just didn't see this one coming.
If the challenge is successful, and in light of States Rights, it probably will be, so be it.
Then the whole liberal Federal Gov’t which dictates ownership/rule of everything, will fall. If they can successfully argue that their law supersedes Fed Law, then we will eventually win as state after state declares their laws superior to the overarching Fed behemoth...
At least in my dreams...
Ah, yes! Massachusetts, the cradle of states’ rights.
Lots of things go into such a shift - first is the mainstream media who are constantly doing all they can to drum up support for homosexual marriage (I no longer use the term "gay", as there is nothing gay about homosexuality - just a giant lie). Second is the rampant and open support of homosexuality by the largest teacher's union in the country - the NEA, who have now officially thrown their hat in the ring in support of homosexual marriage. And finally, a lot of tainted polling that is used to supposedly prove that Americans are "coming around" to accepting homosexual marriage.
Mass. wants to pull the "state sovereignty" component of the Constitution - well, the idiots forget that the same concept should then protect any state that chooses NOT to to recognize the abhorrent practice of granting homosexual marriages.
I pray that if this case hits the SCOTUS, it does so before 0bama has the opportunity to restack the deck in his favor.
If it gets to Supreme Court, it only depends on what Kennedy says...he will be the lone decider as he is on many cases.
When people are starving and can’t find a job, thinks like gay marriage go down the list of imporant issues. I know that is horrible, but just a fact. (Basically my point is Obama has made the economy so horrible that the American people are only concentrating on that).
Well put. As an aside, the states right to "regulate" something does not mean they have the right to "redefine" something. States may have the right to regulate alcohol manufacturing, distribution, and consumption within their borders, but states do not have the right to redefine the chemical composition of an alcohol molecule.
The 1972 Gay Rights Platform....
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. (1972 State-7)
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into
a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless
of sex or numbers. (1972 State-8)
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha1972.htm
How? Did not Massachusetts legalize same-sex marriage? DOMA or no DOMA?
Probably not. Just because something is legal in one state doesn't mean it's legal in another. A woman can operate as a hooker in much of Nevada, that doesn't mean she can peddle her wares in Utah. Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana but that doesn't mean you can assist someone in ending their life in Ohio or Illinois.
Thanks. That was my understanding of how it worked also when I said I didn’t think it applied earlier.
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.