Feature
- Mental Health Screenings Not Necessary in Abortions
- The Burqa Ban is ON!
- Middle-Class Moms and Alcoholism: A Rising Epidemic?
- Murderous Moms: The Peters Tragedy
- Does Being a Pear-Shape Affect Long-Term Memory?
- Is Joan Rivers a Matriarch of Feminism?
- Mother-Murdering Teen Addresses the Media From Jail
- Forget Ron Burgundy ... Anchorladies on the rise!
- Celebrate! Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!
- Saudi Group Using “Prophet of Four” Concept to Control Women
In a surprising turn in the battle for same-sex marriage, the state of Massachussetts — the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage — is suing the federal government, claiming the Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. It also denies same-sex couples federal benefits.
The suit, filed today in Boston, argues the act “constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law.” It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.
DOMA was recently challenged by a married same-sex couple in California, claiming it denied them their federal benefits, among other things. The U.S. Department of Justice — which represents President Obama — filed a brief suggesting the case should be dismissed.
So now it looks like they have to do the whole thing all over again — but against a U.S. state.
Way to go, Massachussetts!
-
-
29
var feedback_widget = new GSFN.feedback_widget(feedback_widget_options);
Will be interesting to see how this plays out, assuming Obama doesn’t have his DOJ try to dismiss the case again.
I think Mass. made a mistake trying to make it a State’s rights issue on the grounds that it is limiting their ability to define marriage, as DOMA explicitly lets States define marriage as they please, but we’ll see.
Excellent!
I love this!! Go Massachusetts!
It’s so true though…the federal government left it up for the states to decide but don’t really recognize it at the federal level so it seems a bit contradictory.
My home turf of New England is making me proud :) Go Mass.!
Oh you Massholes. <3 What WILL you do to make me love you next.
So great of MA to do this. Also, just today I signed a letter/petition by Lt. Choi and another Lt. (Fehbecher?) who are getting discharged from the Army urging Pelosi to get a move on repealing DADT through some Congressional legislation.
I’d be quite interested to see if this sudden renewal of interest in state’s rights will extend to other Federal overreaches, or will just be a tool in this particular cause.
See, the irony is that this could work as a two-edged sword. Mass is trying to assert their right to recognize same-sex marriage, and if this case passes, it only makes sense to give other states the same right, to choose whether or not to recognize it. And there are a fair number of states out there that still don’t want it. But just look at California–even if the GLBT movement demands that the issue be taken to the people and let them choose, if the people say No, the movement will always find some other way to wiggle around it. Frankly, I think it’s despicable that the movement made such a stink about letting the people in California decide, and now they’re trying to completely invalidate that.
You just plain don’t think gay marriage should be legal.
? did I miss something? when did the gay community want people to vote? I thought most people who were pro-gay marriage thought it was disgusting that it was going to be up to a popular vote.
“even if the GLBT movement demands that the issue be taken to the people and let them choose,”
The “LGBT Movement” did NOT put Proposition 8 on the ballot. That was the Mormon church and other organizations that desire a theocracy.
Sarah; the biggest stink I heard about “people deciding” in California was that it was stupid that the general populous was voting about the rights of a minority group. The only people who seemed to be in favor of a general vote were the anti-homosexual people (who were whining non-stop that the Judicial branch for doing it’s job and determining that gay couples were equal to straight couples in collusion with the California State Constitution).
Being a Californian who voted on this particular issue, I can tell you that the consternation is not really so much about the issue, but having the vote legitimately turned over to the people, then having it almost instantly negated by the courts.
It’s happened on numerous occasions, when the general public’s wishes are not shared by the overwhelmingly liberal court system out there. You would be just as frustrated if the opposite situation were to occur, where your vote doesn’t count if a smaller group thinks you’re wrong.
I’d like to point out, SentWest, this country is not supposed to be run by mob rule. Part of the reason of the courts is to protect minorities. When Loving v. Virginia was decided, 17% of the country supported interracial marriage.
17%. That’s even smaller than the Republican party, which sits at 20%.
Which was my point, everything I heard from the LGBT community said nothing about wanting to turn it over to a vote (as it SHOULDN’T have been put up to vote), they were resigned to the fact and tried to make the best of it. The only people I heard crying to have it put to a vote were the anti-homosexuals who were banking on bigotry to win out.
An opposite situation? What would the opposite of this situation be?
Any situation where an overall liberal public was negated by a small conservative court.
Both situations are wrong.
Being a California who voted (duh, against) Prop 8, I would say that the hoopla is very, very much about the issue at hand.
Why ‘duh against’? Californians are allowed to have more than one opinion.. at least until said opinion gets to the 9th circuit.
‘duh, against’ was just a reference to the 100000 pro-gay marriage comments that I have made on this site.
Yea I guess you’d have to frequently chill in the comments to get that haha. It’s hard to remember that not all the commenters are regulars XD. I always notice thatLisa comments (ever since you were appalled at my plan to get married young, but no worries I totally internet like you =] )
errrg :( oh that. sorry about that abbi. just because I typically think getting married young is a horrible idea doesn’t mean that I am not rooting for it to work for you! If anything, I was probably just being big-sistery and trying to keep ya from harm. my apologies and good wishes!
Hahaha! It’s okay =] I was just making a jab. If I got upset every time someone disagreed with me I would have a lot more problems than I do. (Opinionated+Stubborn= Not a very agreeable person)
@ SentWest> So, you’re upset that the California Court System protected a portion of citizens who are underrepresented and just as deserving as everyone else? Yeah, how dare those courts do their job and interpret and uphold the California Constitution as it’s written. Shame, shame…
jab well taken and liked, abbi.
I know, I’ve realized that it is almost impossible to fight my opinionated nature, but stubbornness is definitely a lot easier to deal with!
Yes, I believe in the voice of the people, but I think too many are using that as justification for the majority denying rights to a minority…which is just fundamentally wrong. If you don’t agree with that, then you just wrong. Sorry.
Massachusetts was also the FIRST state to overturn miscegenation laws. I’m proud of my home state. For so many reasons.
Omg PLEASE let us go back to every state having their own currency =]
No this is pretty great but I just think it’s weird that it’s gotten to the point where a state is suing the country it’s in… I hope this doesn’t turn into like a civil war type issue.