Mass. Sues Feds Over Definition of Marriage

[Kai]

Mass. Sues Feds Over Definition of Marriage

The Massachusetts lawsuit challenges the section of the federal law that creates a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

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.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the lawsuit states.

The Justice Department had not seen the lawsuit and cannot respond until it has a chance to review it, spokesman Charles Miller said.

[BrainWalker]

Holy shit that's awesome. That is so awesome it almost neutralizes the anti-awesome of learning about the situation in Bhopal

[pd Rydia]

Maybe this will get Obama to actually do something, and quit pussyfooting around with GLBT rights.

[Spleen]

Every time I hear about another setback in the rights of the LGBT community, I feel shock set in. These are lawmakers doing this. These people are supposed to be intelligent, educated, and worldly. Every time I hear that something has come into contact with state constitutions or previous laws or whatever, I think "That stuff can all be changed!" Why isn't every single state pushing through a "HEY GAY MARRIAGE IS COOL" amendment to their constitutions? Why do people suck?

But go Massachusetts! All riiiiiiiiight!

[Idran1701]

To be fair, some states (such as mine) can only amend their constitution with a vote by the people, so it isn't necessarily the lawmakers in every state. That only shifts the blame, but you can't blame the lawmakers in every state where gay marriage bills haven't yet been passed.

[Spleen]

WATCH ME.

Yeah, I know. Still, this should be getting done faster than it is.

[pd Rydia]

Why isn't every single state pushing through a "HEY GAY MARRIAGE IS COOL" amendment to their constitutions?

Why isn't the federal gov't?

[BrainWalker]

Because politicians want to be re-elected, no matter how progressive they are?

[Idran1701]

Why isn't every single state pushing through a "HEY GAY MARRIAGE IS COOL" amendment to their constitutions?

Why isn't the federal gov't?

Because it's the federal government's position that marriage is and always has been an issue for the states. Whether you agree with that or not (I personally don't, though I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, so my opinion isn't really worth much on that), that's their current position.

[Kai]

Except for that whole DOMA thing, which is MA's problem.

[Idran1701]

...Oh, bah, you're right, I forgot about that law entirely. I don't know what I was thinking - ignore me on that.

[BrainWalker]

No, my understanding is that you had the right of it, Idran, which is why MA is annoyed by DOMA.

It's like,

Fed: Okay, you guys get to define the legality of marriage for yourselves.
States: Sure thing, boss.
Fed: Except now we're going to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
MA: WTF?

Granted, I'm even less a legal scholar than Idran.

[pd Rydia]

Meanwhile, a number of folks are kinda agog at the idea of the federal gov't saying it's a "matter for the states" to decide whether or not to recognize the civil rights of a portion of its citizens.

[Archmage]

And if for some reason anyone is unclear on why "let the states decide" is a poor mantra, well...