Mass. sues feds over definition of gay marriage

... of taxpayers' money to add to the list. How much will this little piece of litigation cost in terms of federal and state tax dollars stolen from Massachusetts citizens's wallets and purses? I guess A.G. Coakley wants to make sure she has a strong PAC in her PACPocket when she decides to run for governor.

And most of us can still barely survive. Nice.

whats to say?? I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. What's so different from having a Civil Union except that 2 men or 2 women can love, live & take care of each other.

It is the right thing to do. The Federal law codifies outright discrimination and denies gays and lesbians the same benefits and privileges accorded to heterosexual couples.

Defending citizens' civil liberties shouldn't carry a price tag, either. If it's wrong, fight it.

Brian in MA - not MN wrote:

It is the right thing to do. The Federal law codifies outright discrimination and denies gays and lesbians the same benefits and privileges accorded to heterosexual couples.
Defending citizens' civil liberties shouldn't carry a price tag, either. If it's wrong, fight it.

Agreed, and since you seem to have money flowing from every orifice, why don't you agree to pay for all the expense of that legal fight and leave the rest of Mass. taxpayers out of it?

HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed, and since you seem to have money flowing from every orifice, why don't you agree to pay for all the expense of that legal fight and leave the rest of Mass. taxpayers out of it?

If it was something that you were fighting for money wouldn't be an issue.

Misappropriation of taxpayer funds by the A.G. Coakley should be no surprise. Government is rotten at all levels.

We have real problems here,lets not worry about this crap!**** kool-aid drinkers!

AnotherWaste wrote:

... of taxpayers' money to add to the list. How much will this little piece of litigation cost in terms of federal and state tax dollars stolen from Massachusetts citizens's wallets and purses? I guess A.G. Coakley wants to make sure she has a strong PAC in her PACPocket when she decides to run for governor.
And most of us can still barely survive. Nice.

Need I point out that some of those taxpayers are gays? Isn't it about time they got something for their tax dollars?

HellerCarbonCapNTradeLLC wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed, and since you seem to have money flowing from every orifice, why don't you agree to pay for all the expense of that legal fight and leave the rest of Mass. taxpayers out of it?

When it comes from defending civil liberties, we're all in this together. That's the way it works in America.

Hopefully the other states that have enacted marriage equality will join the lawsuit and share the expense.

The federal govt. should sue massachusetts over its deffinition of marriage.

oh ****!!!! definition
sorry Brian

eddie-O wrote:

The federal govt. should sue massachusetts over its deffinition of marriage.

The federal government should sue Massachusetts over how it defines corruption in government.

eddie-O wrote:

The federal govt. should sue massachusetts over its deffinition of marriage.

Please, let them try. The states' rights defenders on the Right will blow a gasket. This will make strange bedfellows (pun intended) of the GOP and marriage equality proponents. I love it!

doesn't really matter now anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Brian in MA - not MN wrote:

<quoted text>
Please, let them try. The states' rights defenders on the Right will blow a gasket. This will make strange bedfellows (pun intended) of the GOP and marriage equality proponents. I love it!

Isn't the DOMA the Fedetal law? And DOMA state that any act of Congress effecting the DOMA can only be addressed when a man and woman are involved. DOMA can't be acted upon when there are 2 men or 2 woman. The provision of Congress doesn't allow it. This will also tie the Supreme Courts hands as well

SAL wrote:

whats to say?? I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. What's so different from having a Civil Union except that 2 men or 2 women can love, live & take care of each other.

1. Civil unions are not federally recognized, and are not recognized except where they are registered. In some states, civil unions are municipal contracts and are not even recognized by the state.
2. The benefits, rights, and responsibilities associated with civil unions are not standardized, nor are there any guarantees. Nevada just passed a civil union bill, but with the stipulation that no state agency or public corporation be required to provide health benefits for domestic partners.
3. Here is a hypothetical scenario that might illustrate the inequities of "civil unions" as opposed to civil marriage:
"HI! My partner and I would like to purchase a condo in your development!"
"Are you married, sir?"
"No, but we do have a civil union registered with the neighboring state"
"I'm terribly sorry sir, but our HOA has determined that we will only sell to MARRIED couples, but good luck finding housing elsewhere!"

Get it?

Brian in MA - not MN wrote:

<quoted text>
When it comes from defending civil liberties, we're all in this together. That's the way it works in America.
Hopefully the other states that have enacted marriage equality will join the lawsuit and share the expense.

You certainly don't feel that way concerning the 2nd amendment.

You are fine with the feds regulating a constitutional right in that case, why DO YOU DISCRIMINATE???

lost freedoms wrote:

<quoted text>
You certainly don't feel that way concerning the 2nd amendment.
You are fine with the feds regulating a constitutional right in that case, why DO YOU DISCRIMINATE???

Not a LITTLE off-topic, are we?

Take your guns and your arguments for them to the proper forum please. Second amendment rights and marriage equality are completely separate issues.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not a LITTLE off-topic, are we?
Take your guns and your arguments for them to the proper forum please. Second amendment rights and marriage equality are completely separate issues.

Another "tolerant " liberal response

Mine was a direct response to the previous post concerning CIVIL LIBERTIES.

The homosexuals don't care about morality.