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?
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.
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?
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
