Massachusetts Sues Federal Government
Massachusetts is saying The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
We've written several pieces about how the economy would get a boost if more states adopted gay marriage. Regardless of how comfortable you are with two grooms or two brides, marriages are pricey. Not only do you have the mandatory marriage license, but tuxedo rentals (for him and her), wedding gowns (for him and her), booked reception spaces and hoity toity wedding planners. And don't forget the honeymoon (no matter how low maintenance). All these things inevitably funnel money from one person's pocket to another's. Consumer-wise, weddings are another reason to throw a party and celebrate. Like Valentine's Day or New Years Eve. Wedding Marathon Will Put “Bride Wars” To Shame
So you can imagine our excitement when we read a few days ago that Massachusetts is suing the federal government because they think the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The Bill Clinton-enacted DOMA bill strips a state's right of recognizing same-sex marriages by defining marriage as "exclusively between one man and one woman."
Before DOMA, each state was allowed to enact it's own laws about who married and under what circumstances.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says this denies gay and lesbian couples federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.
Indeed, a gay couple loses out on many of the essential benefits of marriage just because they have identical genitals. And pretty basic ones at that. As CNN.com reports, gay couples don't qualify for the Massachusetts' Medicaid program, known as MassHealth, and don't have control over whether or not a same-sex spouse of a veteran can be buried in a veteran cemetery. If it wasn't for DOMA, they lawsuit says, "married individuals in same-sex relationships in the commonwealth would receive the same status, obligations, responsibilities, rights, and protections as married individuals in different-sex relationships under local, state, and federal laws."
Barack Obama is supposedly for the repeal of DOMA, but we'll see.
Discussion
You know, I always wondered how they could get away with a federal DOMA. The Constitution is very clear that states are the ones in charge of marriage law. The states are also, I believe, required to recognize each other's legally valid marriages. How did they justify the DOMA?
I wonder if they'll be able to win with the current Supreme Court? On the one hand, if you really mean it that you don't construct the law, you just apply it, I don't see how they could support the DOMA. On the other hand, they really are a conservative group.
