Feature Story - August 2009
Federal Marriage Law Challenged by Massachusetts
In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriage between same-sex couples, and codified an animus toward gay and lesbian people."
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The statute also denies federal recognition of gay marriage and allows states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The suit, which was filed in federal court, states, in part, "Congress' decision to enact a federal definition of marriage rejected the long-standing practice of deferring to each state's definition of marriage and contravened the constitutional designation of exclusive authority to the states.
The suit specifically challenges the constitutionality of Section 3 of the law, which says, marriage is "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Besides the federal government in general, other defendants specifically named in the lawsuit include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
The suit claims, some 16 thousand gay couples married in Massachusetts since 2004 are unfairly being denied various federal benefits, including income tax credits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments which are granted to heterosexual couples.
The challenge was filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
"We're taking this action because, first, we believe that DOMA directly interferes with Massachusetts' long-standing sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.
Massachusetts has a single category of married persons, and we view all married persons equally and identically.
DOMA divides that category into two distinct and unequal classes of marriage," Coakley said.
The suit was applauded by Lambda Legal.
Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for the gay rights organization, said, "Marriage discrimination in states, and at the federal level, all boils down to the question of whether there is any legitimate reason to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples."
Pizer's remarks were echoed by Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, another gay rights group.
"The Commonwealth has presented the court with the stark facts of discrimination that should finally spell the end of DOMA. Excluding our families from equal protections never had anything to do with promoting a legitimate interest, and has everything to do with discrimination.
DOMA was wrong, discriminatory and mean-spirited when it was enacted, and today it stands between thousands of married couples and the equal protections they deserve. We applaud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for stepping forward on behalf of these families, and saying, in essence, ‘enough is enough.' Now it is time for the federal government to take affirmative steps to challenge and repeal this discriminatory law that causes real harm to loving, married couples and their children," Solomonese said.
The suit was denounced by Massachusetts Family Institute President, Kris Mineau.
"The state of Massachusetts, and your tax dollars, is challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Unsatisfied with having unleashed marriage redefinition on an unwilling state population by judicial fiat and legislative inaction; unsatisfied with exporting same-sex ‘marriage' to other states with the repeal of the 1913 law (defining traditional marriage); our ever-wise state government has decided to attack the one federal law protecting the definition of marriage for the United States of America.
Martha Coakley has overstepped her bounds. She is beholden to the homosexual special interest groups, who have steadfastly supported her political career," Mineau stated.
Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins, likewise, criticized the suit.
"The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted with the primary purpose of protecting the right of states to define marriage as they see fit so that no state can force marriage redefinition on another state. Now, the Massachusetts Attorney General is expanding the fight against traditional marriage by demanding that federal taxpayers from all 50 states subsidize same-sex ‘marriage' benefits in Massachusetts.
American taxpayers should hold onto their wallets. Should this lawsuit succeed, taxpayers face the very real possibility of being forced to subsidize same-sex ‘marriages.'
Recognizing the ongoing threat to marriage, voters in the last election continued to define marriage in their state constitutions as the union of one man and one woman. We advise the U.S. Justice Department to fulfill its constitutional duties and continue its defense of DOMA against such frivolous lawsuits. We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions," Perkins said.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the department is reviewing the case, but added President Obama supports the legislative repeal of DOMA.
Eight days before the Massachusetts lawsuit was filed, the President mentioned DOMA during remarks at a White House reception marking Gay Pride Month.
"I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add, we have a duty to uphold existing law; but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I've made that clear," the President said.
In addition, the President's speech touched on other areas of interest to the gay community.
"We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.
Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And although we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and can be heartbreaking.
Indeed, that's the story of the movement for fairness and equality–not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It's the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage, and sometimes defiance, wherever and whenever they could.
So this story, this struggle, continues today–for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot–and will not–put aside differences of basic equality. We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.
Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we've already put in place since coming into office. I've signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender) families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don't exist.
I'm also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children.
My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we're making progress on both fronts.
And finally, I want to say a word about ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' (policy enacted in 1993 barring openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military). As I said before–I'll say it again–I believe ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell," doesn't contribute to our national security. In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security.
Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress," the President said.
FRC's Perkins took issue with the President's executive order extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
"It appears to be a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act, and clearly violates the spirit of the federal law.
President Obama's executive order uses taxpayer money to placate an angry portion of his base at the expense of the rule of law. Ironically, Mr. Obama has pursued an aggressive pro-homosexual agenda–but his actions to date are, apparently, insufficient for the radical homosexuals pushing their extreme demands," Perkins said.
Perkins' sentiments were shared in a statement from the Traditional Values Coalition. "The homosexual community is up in arms that President Obama hasn't done enough for them since January. They were led to believe by candidate Obama that if they voted for him, Obama and the Congress would pass all of the gay agenda bills in the first few months.
The Congress and Obama administration have committed to push the LGBT agenda with all of their might during the next few months," TVC stated.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]
