A first: Lesbian couple 'married' in Mass. to challenge federal Defense of Marriage Act

BP News ^ | 7/19/04 | Michael Foust

[truthandlife]

In an historic lawsuit, a same-sex couple "married" in Massachusetts is expected to file a legal challenge July 20 against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

If successful, the lawsuit could result in all 50 states recognizing same-sex "marriage."

Florida attorney Ellis Rubin is scheduled to file the lawsuit in a Tampa, Fla., federal court on behalf of Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a lesbian couple who received a marriage license in Massachusetts July 2 and are suing to have it recognized in Florida, a spokesperson for Rubin told Baptist Press. Wilson is pastor of Trinity Metropolitan Community Church -- a church that affirms homosexuality -- in Sarasota, Fla.

The lawsuit would be the first against the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of a same-sex couple who have a state-recognized marriage license. Legal experts say the license strengthens the couple's case.

A friend of the couple, Robin Tyler of Dontamend.com, said the lawsuit is necessary. Dontamend.com, which first announced the lawsuit, is a campaign seeking to prevent the passage of a constitutional marriage amendment.

"We do not have equal protection under the law, and we will continue to sue across this country, until the Supreme Court of the United States finally grants us full marriage equality," Tyler said in the statement.

Although Rubin has filed lawsuits recently seeking the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Florida, this is the first one where his clients have a valid marriage license.

The nation's major homosexual rights organizations -- such as Lambda Legal -- have yet to file suit against DOMA in federal court, perhaps because they believe the political timing isn't right.

Signed into law in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act is the federal law that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's same-sex "marriages." The law also prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex "marriage." If it is overturned, then every state presumably would be forced to recognize Massachusetts' same-sex "marriages."

The controversy over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is at the heart of the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Opponents of the amendment argue that DOMA has yet to be challenged successfully in court and that the push for a constitutional amendment is premature.

Supporters of the amendment counter by pointing to the numerous lawsuits nationwide and say is it only a matter of time before the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned. On the state level, at least eight states are defending their marriage laws in court against those seeking to legalize same-sex "marriage."

"The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R.-Tenn., said during floor debate on the marriage amendment July 14. "The only question is who will amend it and how it will be amended. Will activist judges -- not elected by the American people -- destroy the institution of marriage? Or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people."

Constitutional amendments require the passage of two-thirds of both the House and Senate and three-quarters (38) of the states.

[ICX]

I hope the DOMA is revealed for the toothless piece of paper it is and exposes the need for a constitutional amendment to put an end to this blatant disregard for the law.

[NeoCaveman]

....but, but, but there's no need for an amendment, this will be left up to the states.....(/liberaltarian)

[SaveTheChief]

I want to see a show of hands.

Who didn't see this one coming?

Anyone?
Anyone?

[NJ_gent]

With any luck, the courts will see the light and shoot this challenge down, thus preserving the states' rights to deal with this issue as they will, and thus ending this whole debate/debacle once and for all.

[Solson]

HEY JOHN MCCAIN SUCK ON THIS YOU IDIOT!!!!

[malakhi]

If same-sex marriage licenses were to be recognized in all 50 states, then logically, the same courtesy should be extended to people with concealed-carry permits.

[RWR8189]

And so it begins...

[AuH2ORepublican]

"With any luck, the courts will see the light and shoot this challenge down, thus preserving the states' rights to deal with this issue as they will, and thus ending this whole debate/debacle once and for all."

---

You mean end it until the next person sues and another court looks at it? How quickly until the 9th Circuit strikes down DOMA? And do you trust O'Connor and Kennedy to hold the fort and overrule a court that strikes down the DOMA? We need a federal constitutional amendment in place if we are to protect marriage.

[Guillermo]

Wow, surprise surprise.

And to all those who said "No amendment is needed, leave it up to the States" should go shove their stupid arguments where the sun doesn't shine.

[scripter]

Ping

[marktuoni]

Hey John Kerry Where do YOU stand on this issue???

BRING IT ON, eh?

[BikerNYC]

I think it will be difficult for a court to sustain the federal government's right to recognize certain marriages lawfully entered into in a state as valid but others as invalid in order to determine which married persons receive certain federal benefits. This is a classic Equal Protection case.

[NJ_gent]

"And to all those who said "No amendment is needed, leave it up to the States" should go shove their stupid arguments where the sun doesn't shine."

Be certain to tell VP Dick Cheney that. While you're visiting, tell his wife the same (she supported his position of it being a state issue in the 2000 campaign). Might also want to tell that to Bob Barr, Alan Simpson, and a bunch of others who've said time and time again that this is a state issue - not a Federal one.

[yoe]

Why have any laws at all? No longer is legislation necessary, just file a lawsuit if you disagree with anything. The coming election will most likely be contested by the loosing party - Democrats. If someone is elected mayor or governor or dogcatcher and someone else doesn't like it - just sue it is the thing to do..............

How quickly America has fallen from her lofty perch of honesty, goodness and justice to the Third Way of the Clinton Third World despotism. Cheating, lying, dishonesty and perjury are characteristic of eight years under a liberal administration and yes Arnold is right in calling them girly-men – Sandy Burger is this day’s case in point – a proven liar along with David Gergen and Tom Daschle along with Gephardt all covering for a liar just because he is a democrat – had Burger’s blunder happened to a Republican, that person would not have 24 hours to get out of town....just a hair away stand the Clintons – still in the shadow but the picture is becoming clearer now – just what will the 9/11 commission do when they are found culpable in the Clinton Cover Up?

[cspackler]

Depends on how you define marriage. I'm sick of these people screaming that their rights are being denied. They have the exact same right to get married to a member of the opposite sex as I do. No one is denying them that. Just because they don't want to, not my problem.

What if two brothers want to get married? What if I want to marry my hamster? Where does it end?

[NJ_gent]

"How quickly until the 9th Circuit strikes down DOMA?"

That depends entirely on the judges who end up on the case and whether all the inevitable cases filed get combined in front of judges with some sense. I wouldn't count on that, though, which brings us to our next topic.

"And do you trust O'Connor and Kennedy to hold the fort and overrule a court that strikes down the DOMA?"

Count on? I never count on those two for anything - nor any of the others for that matter. As I said, with any luck. :-) If not, I'd support an amendment that's worded in such a way to keep the SCOTUS in line with the Constitution's intentions of a limited Federal government of enumerated powers. That'd send this back to the states in a hurry.

[BikerNYC]

In MA, these two women are legally married. That much is clear. If the federal government extends a benefit to married people, then all legally married people should receive it.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Jihad - I mean Agenda - Ping. This one definitely qualifies for the "Jihad" nomenclature.

And just how is this a states' rights issue again? With each state deciding for themelves whether marriage means what it has always mean, or something else entirely?

It's always good to know the truth; it's always good to know what the enemy wants and is planning. Well, here's what the homosexual agenda people want - to dominate, to control, to enforce their immorality on everyone else, everywhere. Is that clear?

And eventually shut us up.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[davisfh]

"A first: Lesbian couple 'married' in Mass. to challenge federal Defense of Marriage Act"

Any idea what they plan to do about birth control?

[NJ_gent]

"This is a classic Equal Protection case."

This is a classic enumerated powers case. Many social conservatives may not like it, but the Federal government has no business getting involved with marriage. Stop looking to the Feds to protect marriage and start looking to the churchs and the states. If you protect the states' rights to decide how their individual governments will deal with the issue, then you've reduced the scope of the Federal government, ensured that you're not stuck in a nation/state that supports something that you oppose so much, and you get the debate settled. Don't forget that a constitutional amendment doesn't settle the debate with gay marriage any more than it did with alcohol consumption. The problem with 'fixing' social problems by using the Constitution is that it: a) doesn't work ... b) the Constitution can be changed again and again and again as enough people are converted to one side or another of the debate. Send this down to the states and let the states figure things out for themselves. You'll get some people trying to change those states which do not allow gay marriage, but it'll never happen so long as sufficient numbers remain to push back.

[NJ_gent]

"In MA, these two women are legally married. That much is clear. If the federal government extends a benefit to married people, then all legally married people should receive it."

As much as I'd like to see the Feds get their noses out of marriage altogether, I'd be content with what you've stated here.

[Grampa Dave]

So do we call this Lesbogate?

[cspackler]

So, if they are legally married in MA, should that have to be recognized in Iowa? That's where DOMA comes in, I believe.

[ladyjane]

In MA, these two women are legally married. That much is clear

Not so fast, Biker. In Massachusetts, they had to sign a statement that they were MA residents or were moving here. Clearly at least one of them is a Florida resident. Did they lie on the application?

[BikerNYC]

Well, the only way the federal government is involved in marriage is how it extends benefits to couples lawfully married by a state. For example, one may bequeath one's entire estate, of whatever amount, to one's lawful spouse 100% federal estate tax free. Single people have a limit of how much they can leave another person 100% estate tax free. If the federal government wanted to stay out of the marriage business, it would not extend this type of benefit to married people.

[BikerNYC]

I think one would sue Iowa if Iowa refused to recognize your marriage. The Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been used to force a state to accept a marriage performed in another state if the state did not already want to do so. Marriages are like law licenses, they are not like court judgments. DOMA doesn't add anything in that regard.

[votelife]

no surprise here.

[NJ_gent]

"Well, the only way the federal government is involved in marriage is how it extends benefits to couples lawfully married by a state."

I understand, but it is in this way that the Federal government sticks its nose into the lives of its citizenry. IRS filings are another example of this. If we simply treat each citizen as a seperate, equal individual from the Federal government perspective, then it gets the Federal government out of the gay marriage debate and also keeps the Federal government that much more out of the lives of ordinary people. Yes, I understand that it's for a 'benefit' (generally monetary or convenience-based in nature), but that benefit comes at a price of lessened privacy and an increased scope of Federal power.

Don't worry if I seem a little off on this thread - the libertarian in me is kicking into high gear. :-)

[NJ_gent]

"Not so fast, Biker. In Massachusetts, they had to sign a statement that they were MA residents or were moving here. Clearly at least one of them is a Florida resident. Did they lie on the application?"

Nice catch. If this is the case, then the courts can punt this case on procedural grounds (ie not married, can't whine about marriage laws).

[BikerNYC]

I'm not sure, but I think they had to say that they intended to move there. How long that intention must last is unclear and may not have to be long, just as the intention to kill someone need not last longer than an instant to be convicted of murder.

[LibertarianLiz]

....but, but, but there's no need for an amendment, this will be left up to the states.....(/liberaltarian)

Would that include Lynn Cheney who has said the same thing?

I was so disappointed when she did that, she really is too smart and knows better.

[BikerNYC]

...but that benefit comes at a price of lessened privacy and an increased scope of Federal power.

I totally agree.

[NeoCaveman]

Well she does have a personal bias. I don't envy her situation.

[gedeon3]

We need to amend the constitution to preserve the institution of marriage as God designed it. The perverts have to be kept at bay at a national level. Libertarians (actually left wing 'conservatives') like you, would love to have only churches sanction marriage; that way, all the renegade churches will be free to legally marry perverts.
That is what you want; right? You may even one of them.

[Republican Wildcat]

A nice present for the Republicans going into the fall elections. Let's hope this makes headlines.

[Guillermo]

If I had their ears, I would tell them.

It fails to stay a "state issue" when a FEDERAL court says the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution compels 49 states to recognize the homosexual "marriages" of 1 state.

I wonder if they would support an amendment that said "one state doesn't have to recognize the homosexual "marriages" of other states."

[gedeon3]

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but BECAME vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they BECAME FOOLS,

[DannyTN]

"Who didn't see this one coming? "

Who would be John Kerry? Who actually said he voted against the DOMA because he didn't think there was a threat to marriage.

[Republican Wildcat]

So which one was the bride and which one was the groom? Which one is the husband and which one is the wife?

[B Knotts]

As I have said on other threads, the reality is:

You either support the federal marriage amendment, or you support homosexual "marriage."

There are no other options.

[datakcy]

I'm no lawyer (THANK God!) but wouldn't it be appropriate for the SUPREMES to (for once!!!) look at the overreaching hand of activist courts and reassert the right of the people through the legislative process to determine such IMPORTANT and BASIC (to the systematic furtherance of civil society for future generations to come) things as marriage?

Does the ENTIRE history of American Constitutional law and English common law (going back hundreds of years) back this upside-down, biologically wrong, yet politically correct interpretation of the foundation of western civilization?

Because if it DOES, then EVERY consensual sexual whim ought to be satisfied whether polygamy, incest, S&M, pedophilia, multi-partnerships, and perhaps even necrophilia. Pandora's box of horrors will at last be completely open. But most of you already knew that these were RAT constituencies anyhow.

On the latter - it will at last justify what the RATS have been doing for years: allowing the dead to continue to vote. How interesting that would be: they deny the religious implications of the resurrection from the dead (especially because that would destroy the basis for their perverse & deviant behavior) with the exception of Election Day! There is no holier day for them than the day they attempt to take power and exert their will on the people.

[NJ_gent]

"You may even [be] one of them."

Ahh yes, when logic fails, call him a 'homo'. Very mature.

"Libertarians (actually left wing 'conservatives') like you"

Some social 'conservatives' (actually left wingers with added morality who hide behind the label of conservative because they like to think that's what they are) want the government to force all to conform to their stated social and moral beliefs. They enjoy being coddled by Big Gov, and have no problem with Big Brother so long as he's working for their interests. They like the idea of the Federal government controlling every aspect of each citizens' life, so long as they're doing so in such a way that each citizen behaves in a manner prescribed by their belief system and/or moral code. They have no problem with government agents busting down bedroom doors to look for 'immoral' or 'unnatural' sex acts, be they by married couples or otherwise. (AKA the 'dildo police') Their ideal state is one of a Puritanistic fascist totalitarian state in which their moral and ethical beliefs govern all. They see all who oppose them as their enemy - to be ignored, exiled, or killed. And within America's wonderfully tolerant system, they see an opportunity to usurp power to their own ends.

"That is what you want; right?"

Let's see:

Limited Federal government check
States' rights check
Individual liberty check
No interference from the government in the internal affairs of religious institutions. check

Yeah, that's about right.

[oceanview]

what exactly is your desired outcome here? do you want to keep this from the SCOTUS on some procedural grounds? why? because you know that they will toss the federal DOMA (they will, 6-3), and then that will force the amendment issue up again, else we face legalized gay marriage nationwide?

I say, get this case on the fast track to the SCOTUS, let them toss the DOMA. let's have it out on this issue, win or lose. if the sheeple want gay marriage legalized from the bench, let them have it, let's see them them howl when their kids are taught in public school that Bobby and Timmy can marry, just like Bobby and Mary.

[oceanview]

they wont. the federal DOMA goes down, 6-3, according to no less the Robert Bork. Maybe not on this case, but only by a procedural quirk. But there will be plenty of challenges that may not suffer from a procedural issue.

so, what's your next move after that happens?

[3AngelaD]

Actually what you're talking about here is the full faith and credit clause. That is where the problem arises when the different states have different laws.

[Wampus SC]

"If same-sex marriage licenses were to be recognized in all 50 states, then logically, the same courtesy should be extended to people with concealed-carry permits.

Doggone right! I wouldd even make a special trip to Fudgepakistan Massachusetts just to use my South Carolina permit.

[NJ_gent]

"It fails to stay a "state issue" when a FEDERAL court says the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution compels 49 states to recognize the homosexual "marriages" of 1 state."

It's a state issue so long as the DOMA stands, and so long as challenges get punted. It's also a state issue if the SCOTUS upholds the DOMA. It's a state issue once more if we get an amendment that forces the SCOTUS to recognize that the Federal government is one of enumerated powers. Since there is no compelling interest between two states for a married couple, there would be no Federal jurisdiction, hence no Federal court challenges.

[BikerNYC]

Actually what you're talking about here is the full faith and credit clause.

Like I've said, the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been used to force a state to accept a marriage performed in another state if the state did not already want to do so.

[Glenn]

No longer is legislation necessary

Of course it is. Legislation is required to keep cash coming into the government.

The courts are only responsible for our moral compass.