Jul 8, 2009 1:00 pm US/Central

Marriage Debate
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. 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.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court 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.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa — have legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in Maine said Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures to put the state's new law on the November ballot for a possible override.

The Massachusetts lawsuit challenges the section of the federal law that creates a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the lawsuit states.

The Justice Department had not seen the lawsuit and cannot respond until it has a chance to review it, spokesman Charles Miller said.

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriages and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize them.

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law, although gay rights activists criticized the administration last month after Justice Department lawyers defended it in a court brief. White House aides said they were doing their jobs to support a law that is on the books.

This is the second lawsuit filed in Massachusetts challenging the law.

In March, the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders claimed the law discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as health insurance and pensions.

In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.

The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether it should stand.

The bell has officially wrong, and we are DEEP into this round. Now is not the time for those who oppose same-sex marriage to stay silent in the corner and allow this to happen without a fight.

Save the "Defense of Marriage Act", as American citizens by posting onto the link below and signing the petition.

Speak now or forever lose your country.

We can take America Back and keep it a GREAT NATION!

http://www.protectdoma.org/

It's on the left (in the red area). SIGN THE PETITION!

Start letter writing campains. We can stop this, but it will take ALL OF US.

Write your senators:

Jeff Bingaman (D)
703 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Tom Udall (D)
B40D DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
Washington, DC 20510

New Mexico Representatives (Congress)

Martin Heinrich (D)
20 First Plaza
Suite 603
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Ben Lujan (D)
811 St. Michael's Drive
Suite 104
Santa Fe, NM 87505

Harry Teague (D)
200 E Broadway
Suite 200
Hobbs, NM 88240

DOMA IS the law of the land, so does this give us the right to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, which is not really law but only a decision by the court?

Pathetic bigots fighting a losing battle -- rather humorous to watch their writhing and whining.

The bigger question is who cares. It will not lessen my marriage to my wife in any way shape or form. If Adam loves Steve and they want to get married why not. This is a double edge sword along with marriage comes divorce and ther goes half your s h i t out the window.

Get That Fool wrote:

Start letter writing campains. We can stop this, but it will take ALL OF US.
Write your senators:
Jeff Bingaman (D)
703 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tom Udall (D)
B40D DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
Washington, DC 20510
New Mexico Representatives (Congress)
Martin Heinrich (D)
20 First Plaza
Suite 603
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Ben Lujan (D)
811 St. Michael's Drive
Suite 104
Santa Fe, NM 87505
Harry Teague (D)
200 E Broadway
Suite 200
Hobbs, NM 88240

Write one letter today!

Coakley gave three reasons for the suit:

DOMA created a federal definition of marriage, directly interfering with Massachusetts’ longstanding soverign authority to determine who it determines are “married” under federal law.
DOMA is a discriminatory law.
DOMA places Mass. in the position of choosing whether to adapt its programs to fit federal law, but if it does so, it limits the ability of Mass. residents to have full equality under Mass. programs.

Section 2, the Full Faith and Credit portion of DOMA, is not challenged.

Among the commonwealth-specific harms Coakley cited are:

The commonwealth is affected when it provides health benefits because same-sex couples who choose to receive them are tax on those partners’ benefits, which “frankly creates a paperwork nightmare.” She referred repeatedly to the “two-tiered” system the state had to create after 2004 as a result of DOMA.

DOMA requires that Mass treats individuals differently under public medical benefits like Medicaid and Medicare.
Mass. cannot inter the same-sex spouses of military veterans in federal military burial locations.

The lawsuit, per Coakley, is seeking an injunction against the federal government prohibiting it from applying DOMA to Massachusetts.

DOMA also violates the Spending Clause, the suit alleges. One clear limitation is that Congress cannot compel the states to violate its states’ citizens state constitutional rights. This is interesting because it is something that is far more effectively raised by a state than any private party.

Asked about the GLAD Gill lawsuit, Coakley said that the state’s lawsuit is brought on behalf of all citizens, so it is in that sense broader.“They [the GLAD suit's lawyers] bring similar and related issues as to the impact” of DOMA.

Consolidation with the Gill suit is a possibility they have considered, as she said judges “often put together” cases containing similar issues.

As to why now and why Massachusetts, Coakley noted,“We now have a record of five years” of implementing marriage equality and seeing the development of the “two-tiered” system.

WASHINGTON, July 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/-- Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to a lawsuit filed today by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley challenging the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage established by Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In 1996 DOMA was passed overwhelmingly in the House (342-67) and Senate (85-14) and then was quickly signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080930/... )

"In 1996, 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 and President Obama's health care reform pass without an explicit ban on tax funded abortions - taxpayers face the very real possibility of being forced to subsidize both same-sex 'marriages' and abortion coverage within a universal health care plan.

"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."

An interesting excerpt from The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White, notice especially the marriage part.

During the Revolution, in 1793, "the world for the first time heard an assembly of men,

Page 270
born and educated in civilization, and assuming the right to govern one of the finest of the European nations, uplift their united voice to deny the most solemn truth which man's soul receives, and renounce unanimously the belief and worship of a Deity."

--Sir Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon, vol. 1, ch. 17. "France is the only nation in the world concerning which the authentic record survives, that as a nation she lifted her hand in open rebellion against the Author of the universe. Plenty of blasphemers, plenty of infidels, there have been, and still continue to be, in England, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere; but France stands apart in the world's history as the single state which, by the decree of her Legislative Assembly, pronounced that there was no God, and of which the entire population of the capital, and a vast majority elsewhere, women as well as men, danced and sang with joy in accepting the announcement."-

- Blackwood's Magazine, November, 1870.
France presented also the characteristics which especially distinguished Sodom. During the Revolution there was manifest a state of moral debasement and corruption similar to that which brought destruction upon the cities of the plain. And the historian presents together the atheism and the licentiousness of France,

as given in the prophecy: "Intimately connected with these laws affecting religion, was that

which reduced the union of marriage--the most sacred engagement which human beings can form, and the permanence of which leads most strongly to the consolidation of society--to the state of a mere civil contract

of a transitory character, which any two persons might engage in and cast loose at pleasure....

If fiends had set themselves to work to discover a mode of most effectually destroying whatever is venerable, graceful, or permanent in domestic life, and of obtaining at the same time an assurance that the mischief which it was their object to create should be perpetuated from one generation to another, they could not have invented a more effectual plan that the degradation of marriage.... Sophie Arnoult, an

since this will turn into one of gtf's sermons, I will post and then go away.
The issue Mass is opposing is that until DOMA, marriage laws were a right reserved to the states. Each state set its own rules such as what age no longer required parental permission, residency requirements etc. DOMA takes that right away from the states and that is what Mass is opposing. Most conservatives object to increasing federal powers at the expense of states rights.

Marriage as man, is what he believes. People are much more alike inside than they are on the surface...

bbb wrote:

since this will turn into one of gtf's sermons, I will post and then go away.
The issue Mass is opposing is that until DOMA, marriage laws were a right reserved to the states. Each state set its own rules such as what age no longer required parental permission, residency requirements etc. DOMA takes that right away from the states and that is what Mass is opposing. Most conservatives object to increasing federal powers at the expense of states rights.

Yeah, but if one state recognizes same-sex marriage another doesn't, those wanting same-sex marriage will think that is unfair. Those states with civil unions only are alreday getting sued because they will not recognize a marriage of the same-sex from another state. DOMA really is the only way and it is law. Roe Vs. Wade was never law, it was always an interpretation of the law and to be honest a poor interpretation at that.

Trying to stop civil rights for all and preserve it for only a few like thinking individuals WILL thankfully fail in the end.

Eventually...we will all live with the SAME freedoms meant to be enjoyed by all - yes EVERYONE in this great country. Trouble is there are those who want to "preserve" conservative ideals that fit what they think and try to push their agenda on all under the guise of "Christian values or Family values".

Conservatives don't really fight for family values - they fight for what THEY THINK OUR RIGHTS SHOULD BE! Conservatives are willing to curb our freedom of speech if it clashes with their interpretation of "traditional" values.

Fun to watch and even more interesting to see how they rationalize their personal "God given" opinions in their efforts to parlay their agenda to the forefront.

Thanks but no thanks...anyone who tries to limit my freedoms because I don't share their idea of marriage or family values is in for a world of hurt.

My opinion and you are FREE to think as YOU wish because we have the freedom to do so.

Oh you can be sure that I will write and write and write...REPEAL DOMA!!

An excerpt from The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White. So Curious Me, you are on the side to overthrow God and pervert His will? Seeing as His Word says that homosexuality is a sin. Just Checking.

Chapter 36
The Impending Conflict
From the very beginning of the great controversy in heaven it has been Satan's purpose to overthrow the law of God. It was to accomplish this that he entered upon his rebellion against the Creator, and though he was cast out of heaven he has continued the same warfare upon the earth. To deceive men, and thus lead them to transgress God's law, is the object which he has steadfastly pursued. Whether this be accomplished by casting aside the law altogether, or by rejecting one of its precepts, the result will be ultimately the same. He that offends "in one point," manifests contempt for the whole law; his influence and example are on the side of transgression; he becomes "guilty of all." James 2:10.

In seeking to cast contempt upon the divine statutes, Satan has perverted the doctrines of the Bible, and errors have thus become incorporated into the faith of thousands who profess to believe the Scriptures. The last great conflict between truth and error is but the final struggle of the long-standing controversy concerning the law of God. Upon this battle we are now entering--a battle between the laws of men and the precepts of Jehovah, between the religion of the Bible and the religion of fable and tradition.

The agencies which will unite against truth and righteousness in this contest are now actively at work. God's holy word, which has been handed down to us at such a cost of

Page 583
suffering and blood, is but little valued. The Bible is within the reach of all, but there are few who really accept it as the guide of life. Infidelity prevails to an alarming extent, not in the world merely, but in the church. Many have come to deny doctrines which are the very pillars of the Christian faith. The great facts of creation as presented by the inspired writers, the fall of man, the atonement, and the perpetuity of the law of God, are practically rejected, either wholly or in part, by a large share of the professedly Christian world. Thousands who pride themselves upon their wisdom and independence regard it as an evidence of weakness to place implicit confidence in the Bible; they think it a proof of superior talent and learning to cavil at the Scriptures and to spiritualize and explain away their most important truths. Many ministers are teaching their people, and many professors and teachers are instructing their students, that the law of God has been changed or abrogated; and those who regard its requirements as still valid, to be literally obeyed, are thought to be deserving only of ridicule or contempt.
In rejecting the truth, men reject its Author. In trampling upon the law of God, they deny the authority of the Law-giver. It is as easy to make an idol of false doctrines and theories as to fashion an idol of wood or stone. By misrepresenting the attributes of God, Satan leads men to conceive of Him in a false character. With many, a philosophical idol is enthroned in the place of Jehovah; while the living God, as He is revealed in His word, in Christ, and in the works of creation, is worshiped by but few. Thousands deify nature while they deny the God of nature. Though in a different form, idolatry exists in the Christian world today as verily as it existed among ancient Israel in the days of Elijah. The god of many professedly wise men, of philosophers, poets, politicians, journalists--the god of polished fashionable circles, of many colleges and universities, even of some theological institutions--is little better than Baal, the sun-god of Phoenicia.

JosephOne wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, but if one state recognizes same-sex marriage another doesn't, those wanting same-sex marriage will think that is unfair. Those states with civil unions only are alreday getting sued because they will not recognize a marriage of the same-sex from another state. DOMA really is the only way and it is law. Roe Vs. Wade was never law, it was always an interpretation of the law and to be honest a poor interpretation at that.

The courts can declare a law unconstitutional. If the DOMA is declared unconstitutional, it will have to be taken off the books. No more law of the land.

JosephOne wrote:

An excerpt from The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White. So Curious Me, you are on the side to overthrow God and pervert His will? Seeing as His Word says that homosexuality is a sin. Just Checking.

What's between me and my GOD is none of your business. You keep yourself on the path and I take care of myself. You are passing judgement on me.

I like how you folks cherry pick the bible...do you eat pork? If so, are you on the side that would overthrow God and pervert his will? That's HIS word as well. That alone will keep you out of heaven my friend. Any one in your church divorce and then re-marry - or how about you? That is adultry my friend. That's HIS word too! Do you apply the same rules to their adulterous remarried members as you apply to homosexuals?

Pick and choose. Keep your religion and your PERSONAL beliefs close to your own heart and let others do the same. You need to work on saving yourself instead of standing in judgement of others - that's God's work not yours.

Get That Fool wrote:

WASHINGTON, July 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/-- Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to a lawsuit filed today by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley challenging the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage established by Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In 1996 DOMA was passed overwhelmingly in the House (342-67) and Senate (85-14) and then was quickly signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080930/... )
"In 1996, 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 and President Obama's health care reform pass without an explicit ban on tax funded abortions - taxpayers face the very real possibility of being forced to subsidize both same-sex 'marriages' and abortion coverage within a universal health care plan.
"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."

I love how the author ties same sex marriage, Health care reform, and abortion all in one, hoping to draw a larger base of supporters. She does a great job of trying to scare people, but that is about it.

Southern CA Girl wrote:

<quoted text>
The courts can declare a law unconstitutional. If the DOMA is declared unconstitutional, it will have to be taken off the books. No more law of the land.

It won't be. It's been tested before and held up quite nicely. It will stand.

Curious me wrote:

<quoted text>
What's between me and my GOD is none of your business. You keep yourself on the path and I take care of myself. You are passing judgement on me.
I like how you folks cherry pick the bible...do you eat pork? If so, are you on the side that would overthrow God and pervert his will? That's HIS word as well. That alone will keep you out of heaven my friend. Any one in your church divorce and then re-marry - or how about you? That is adultry my friend. That's HIS word too! Do you apply the same rules to their adulterous remarried members as you apply to homosexuals?
Pick and choose. Keep your religion and your PERSONAL beliefs close to your own heart and let others do the same. You need to work on saving yourself instead of standing in judgement of others - that's God's work not yours.

Bringing people to Christ is our work. Telling people the truth is our work. Following the WORD is our work. We may not be perfect, but we don't make excuses either.