Massachusetts Sues U.S. Over Gay Marriage Rights

[tekisui]

Source: Reuters

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' attorney general filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the U.S. government that seeks federal marriage benefits for about 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have legally wed in Massachusetts.

The state is challenging the constitutionality of the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying the law denies "essential rights and protections" to same-sex couples who have married since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay weddings in 2004.

The federal law interferes with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage," according to the suit filed in federal court in Boston. It calls the law "overreaching and discriminatory."

The suit is the latest skirmish over gay marriage in the U.S. federal court system after handful of political filmmakers led by a Democratic consultant crafted a gay rights challenge in May that they hope will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

It also follows a separate lawsuit filed by a group of married gay couples in Massachusetts in March that also challenged the same portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

Although Massachusetts and five other U.S. states have authorized gay marriage, same-sex couples who are legally married in those states cannot access the federal protections and programs granted to straight married couples.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, denies gay and lesbian couples access to more than 1,000 federal programs and legal protections, gay rights advocates say.

more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE56768520090708

[newscott]

1. While I am all for this action

I can't help but think ol' Mahtha is trying to feather her cap.... I'm such a cynic.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Can't wait to see how bigot "states' rights" republicans react to this.

[Still Sensible]

3. I have a problem with this

because the apparent basis for the action is to protect "the state's 'sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage.'" If the case is won on that basis, it seems to me it would create yet another hurdle to equal rights nationwide as some states fall back on the sovereignty precedent. It seems to me they would have a better argument citing the full faith and credit clause.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. I think this could be great news, frankly.

SCOTUS doesn't always stick to what's being litigated when it decides on cases. A decision could easily wind up being weighed on the Constitutionality of DOMA, which I have a hard time even envisioning an argument that would protect it.

On the other side, it could be horrible news. We still have a conservative SCOTUS, and this could wind up affirming DOMA.

Still, the odds, I believe, are in our favor. Proud to be a native of Massachusetts!

[Eric J in MN]

5. I doubt this lawsuit will succeed.

Saying it interferes with state sovereignty that more money isn't going from the federal government to people in Massachusetts seems too contradictory.

The federal government isn't stopping the government of Massachusetts from making up the difference.

The federal government can define terms like "poverty" and "unemployment" differently than a state government.