Massachusetts Sues Feds on DOMA
Massachusetts has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on the basis that it violates the rights of individual states to legislate on such private matters:
Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.
“Our familes, our communities, and even our economy have seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and, frankly, no downside,” Attorney General Martha Coakley said this afternoon at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. “However, we have also seen how many of our married residents and their families are being hurt by a discriminatory, unprecedented, and, we believe, unconstitutional law.”
The suit filed in US District Court in Boston claims that the Congress, in enacting the DOMA, “overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.”
[...]
The lawsuit argues that the DOMA, which was enacted in 1996, precludes same-sex spouses in Massachusetts from a wide range of protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.The defendants named in the lawsuit include the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and the United States itself. Charles Miller, a US Justice Department spokesman, said, “We haven’t seen it. Once we are served with it, we’ll review it and make a determination as to how to respond.”
The lawsuit questions the constitutionality of Section 3 of the law, which defines the word “marriage” for the purpose of federal law as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” It does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 2, which provides that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The suit alleges that the law violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states all powers except those granted to the federal government. It also alleges that the law violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which limits the power of Congress to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds.
Another organization — Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) — is preparing its own legal challenge to DOMA, which, Bil Browning tells us, will allege that DOMA violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
Pam’s House Blend links to the pdf of the complaint, and plus has further information about the lawsuit, as well as a roundup of reaction from GLBT advocacy organizations (and from Barney Frank).
Closing the Circle
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh, we now know that Gov. Mark Sanford committed adultery because he was in despair over Pres. Obama’s handling of the economic crisis. But what we did not know until today was the answer to this question: What caused the economic crisis?
Proposition 8: Reading the Tea Leaves
Sara Robinson at Orcinus speculates on what might happen if California’s Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8 tomorrow:
Nobody has a clue which way they’re likely to rule. Activists on both sides have been scrying the tea leaves and chicken bones on this ever since the court heard the case back in March, but have divined nothing. But there’s one forecast I can offer right now: if Prop 8 is overturned by the courts, the backlash from the right is likely to be far more ferocious and intense than anybody on the left reckons right now.
In recent weeks, I’ve been in discussions with some of the state’s gay leadership about how the hardcore right across the country is likely to react if Prop 8 is overturned. From their viewpoint, even a loss in the courts will only be a momentary setback. In that case, they’ll simply put the issue back on the ballot, over and over, for as long as it takes to regain their right to marry. They know (and the most recent polls support them in this) that time, demographics, and the generally tolerant culture of California are all on their side. They may or may not be able to outspend the Mormons and the Catholics; but they know for sure that they can outwait them.
For that reason, they’re not particularly worried about the right-wing reaction to a decision in their favor. In their view, victory is (sooner or later) preordained. In the long run, the anti-gay-marriage forces are fighting a losing battle. If they’re not irrelevant now, they will be soon. And so they’re not much worried about that.
But they should be.
Yes, the right wing is losing on gay rights issues. That is, very precisely, why they’re more dangerous now than they have been in the past. Their impending irrelevance is not a reason to worry less; it’s a reason to worry more. And getting Prop 8 overturned in the courts would ignite the situation, because it will hit absolutely every angry-making right-wing button there is[.]
Maine Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci deserves praise for signing this bill into law because in the past he opposed gay marriage:
A Civics Lesson
Two separate developments on the gay marriage front today, from opposite sides of the political spectrum.
First, New York’s Gov. David Paterson is planning a Thursday announcement, according to the usual informed sources, that he will be introducing a bill in the state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. First thing I’ve heard of him doing that actually makes sense.
And second, the Des Moines Register reports that a Republican candidate for governor of Iowa is campaigning on a promise to stop gay marriage rights by executive order. Same-sex marriage was made legal in Iowa as a result of the recent decision by Iowa’s Supreme Court that a state law defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual was unconstitutional:
A Republican candidate for governor vowed today to stop gay marriage if he’s elected, but several Statehouse officials say his proposed method would be illegal.
“If I have the opportunity to serve as your next governor,” Bob Vander Plaats told a crowd of about 350 people at a rally, “and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution.”
As the article points out, this would be illegal:
Several lawmakers and Phil Roeder, a spokesman for Gov. Chet Culver, said the governor doesn’t have that power.
“Governors in Iowa do not have the ability to prevent or overturn a decision of the Supreme Court through an executive order,” Roeder said. “It’s disappointing that some people, especially politicians, would try to mislead the public into thinking that governors do have such power.”
Vander Plaats said in a telephone interview he would try the executive order approach anyway – and thinks Culver should try it now.
“Who is to balance the courts?” he said. “Who says the courts get the final say?”
Ummm… the U.S. Constitution?
It’s a genuine shame this is necessary, but let’s go ahead and take a moment to remind our right-wing friends about a concept they should have learned in junior-high civics class: Governors can veto legislation passed by state legislatures; governors cannot veto rulings from state Supreme Courts. State officials can’t pick and choose, following court rulings they like, nullifying court rulings they don’t.
The Times, They Are a-Changin’
Today, the Vermont legislature became the first state to legalize gay marriage, by law rather than judicial ruling. The governor vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode the veto.
Wehner to Frank: You Are Being Unfair to Warren
Peter Wehner has a particularly nauseating piece in Commentary in which he tells Barney Frank that it was very unfair of him to say that it’s unfair of Rick Warren to liken gay marriage to incest:
Itzhak Perlman on Proposition 8
Via Andrew Sullivan, I just learned of the existence of this video, in which Itzhak Perlman speaks out against Proposition 8 (before the election) on behalf of his daughter, who is gay.
Obviously, the election is over, but I just thought the way Perlman presented himself on this issue was very moving.
I’m late, I’m late: Critiquing No on 8
Apologies if this entry reads more like a disjointed legal treatise than a blog post; I’m three days out of finals and I haven’t decolonized my writing yet.
No on Proposition 8 failed strategically as a political campaign, and Rolling Stone is the first mainstream publication to make the obvious argument obvious. Logically it makes much more sense to take the political leadership behind the campaign to task than blaming the California black community for a debunked, flawed exit poll analysis that still gets tacitly promoted as a viable possibility. And contrary to the instincts of straight white allies, it really isn’t homophobic to point to this loss as part political and organizational failure.
A Little Thought Experiment
Reading the flood of outraged responses by right-wing bloggers to Kathleen Parker’s suggestion that, if Republicans want to start winning elections again, they might want to start appealing to a broader demographic than far right religious extremists, I was struck with particular force by this comment [emphasis mine]:
God Smites The Gays
No, I’m not kidding. You see, the whole reason for the wildfires out in California have nothing to do with the Santa Ana winds at all, and everything to do with the fact that God hates gays, and he’s not taking it anymore.
Of course, if this is true, God’s timing might be off by a wee bit.
‘No’ on Prop 8 — and ‘No’ on Race-Baiting UPDATE: TAKE ACTION!
UPDATE: More below the fold on what you can do to take action against Proposition 8
I would like to sign on to the following statement from Truth Wins Out:
Truth Wins Out today expressed its grave disappointment in those in the LGBT community who have emulated our bigoted opponents by scapegoating minorities. It has been reported that African Americans have been verbally abused and have had racial epithets hurled at them during Anti-Proposition 8 rallies.
“It is reprehensible to look for scapegoats and target innocent people with vile racial epithets,” said TWO Executive Director, Wayne Besen. “We call on all GLBT people behave intelligently and act responsibly, so we can figure out – together – the best way for our movement to proceed and achieve equality.”
What specifically was Besen referring to?
Sarah Palin, the Non-Judgmental Homophobe
From Think Progress:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to ban marriage equality, because he believes it is an issue to be left up to states. In an interview with CBN’s David Brody, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) broke with McCain and strongly supported the amendment:
PALIN: [I]n my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage. I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do.
Did Palin “Establish Debating Parity” with Joe Biden?
David Brooks thinks she did:
Taking the Fight to November
Jammie Wearing Fool and Macsmind Prove They Either Don’t Understand Polls, or Don’t Understand California
So when a good friend asks if I wanna join a fight, and we’re on the same side of that fight, you bet I’m in. Especially when the topic at hand is as close to my heart as gay marriage.
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
This is just coming and I haven’t seen the decision yet but this is a step in the right direction.
UPDATE: You can see the opinion here. It was a 4-3 vote. Most promising for changing attitudes regarding gay marriage is that 3 of the 4 justices in the majority were appointed to the bench by Republicans.
Donate to CFLF
Blogroll
Pennsylvania Blogs
The Liberal Media
Blogging Liberally
Advertising
Comments From Left Field is a member of...
Memeorandum
Archives
- 2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2004: J F M A M J J A S O N D
- 2003: J F M A M J J A S O N D
Blog Stuff
