Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law
Boston.com ^ | July 9, 2009 | Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman

Posted on 12/31/2009 3:54:02 PM PST by Sparky1776

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, yesterday became the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states.

The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples - on certain health benefits and burial rights - or risk losing federal funding.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: bhohomosexualagenda; coakley; coakley4romney; dnc4romney; doma; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; ma2010; msm4romney; operationleper; romney; romney4coakley; romney4dnc; romney4obama; romney4romney; romneymarriage; samesexmarriage; sodomchusetts
Attorney General Martha Coakley is running against Scott Brown for US Senate, a special election will be held on January 19, 2009.
1 posted on 12/31/2009 3:54:03 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

This is a fight we can’t afford to lose!


2 posted on 12/31/2009 3:54:58 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

Oops the election is obviously in 2010.


3 posted on 12/31/2009 3:55:47 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776
contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states

Actually it is the constitution that reserves it for the states. This is not the only states rights issue that should be taken up nor is it the most important.

4 posted on 12/31/2009 3:58:12 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Unions are the storm troopers of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

All of a sudden, liberals are worried about states’ rights.


5 posted on 12/31/2009 3:59:04 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

I voted for Ron Paul, and I agree with him that the federal government has no authority to be involved in this issue.


6 posted on 12/31/2009 4:00:09 PM PST by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

this is one of the reasons I left

ma.


7 posted on 12/31/2009 4:01:35 PM PST by brivette (paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

Yes, but it will be ahrd to argue against them that the 14th Ammendment does not mean that states must honor what other states do (ie forcing California to recognize a homosexual marriage in Mass). Not saying I don’t like it, but that is the way it appears to me. Does anyone have any good, constitutional (not emotional) way to counter that argument?


8 posted on 12/31/2009 4:01:49 PM PST by chargers fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
States rights regarding homosexual marriage = good

States rights regarding abortion = bad

9 posted on 12/31/2009 4:03:48 PM PST by constitutiongirl ("Nietzsche was stupid & abnormal."- Leo Tolstoy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

And the GOP has already abandoned him.


10 posted on 12/31/2009 4:04:56 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINO's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

It seems a lot of people like the Nanny State, just as long as they can be the nanny.


11 posted on 12/31/2009 4:09:48 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

Not happy living in slime and filth themselves, they want to force it on the rest of America.

Is it Claire Wolfe Time yet?

When will the push to take America back from the destroyers begin?


12 posted on 12/31/2009 4:18:48 PM PST by Iron Munro (God is great - Beer is good - People are crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

This is how they intend to make gay marriage legal in all 50 states by judicial fiat, just as they did with abortion on demand.

Another reason why seceding is not a bad option.


13 posted on 12/31/2009 4:25:52 PM PST by OrangeHoof ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Bend over suckahs".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

The federal law is Constitutional. The MA law is not. Judicial fiat.


14 posted on 12/31/2009 4:32:02 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (Throw the bums out who vote yes on the bail out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Grundle, I got to disagree with you on this one.

I didn’t vote for gay marriage, never had the opportunity to.

Nor did any state rep anywhere in Massachusetts.

No Governor of Massachusetts signed it into law.

Judges invented a new meaning for the word marriage, in fact, they used the term “construed” for their judicial overreach.

Does my Massachusetts electrical licesnce allow me to wire a home in Idaho? I would think it should if they want to have marriage covered under the commerce clause, since wiring for profit really is commerce.

As far a Ron Paul is concern he is so out there he has problems with going after pedophiles - he & Barney Frank have very similiar records on the subject - check my profile and check out his record on those bills listed. Imo he is a perv.


15 posted on 12/31/2009 4:43:43 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

“When will the push to take America back from the destroyers begin?”

Jan 19, 2010

Vote for Scott Brown!


16 posted on 12/31/2009 4:45:50 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

..... But you’ve got to admit, Sparky. Isn’t it an absolute laugh riot seeing one of our local goggle-eyed progressive Democratic fanatics arguing states’ rights?

Politically speaking, living in MA is like having Rod Serling as a neighbor on one side, Professor Irwin Corey on the other side, and Al Capone across the street. Just absolutely surreal.

Happy New Year to one and all.


17 posted on 12/31/2009 4:50:32 PM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: chargers fan

It doesn’t appear that they are making a 14th amendment challenge. I think you are right that the 14th requires one state to honor the marriages performed in another state, though. This suit appears to be claiming simply that the DOMA is not a delegated power. Of course it isn’t. How to counter it? How about the commerce clause (half-joking)? All you need to do is prove that marriage has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and shazam, it’s Constitutional!


18 posted on 12/31/2009 4:55:17 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: constitutiongirl

Or, if you like the Defense of Marriage Act:

Big government regarding homosexual marriage = good
Big government regarding abortion = bad


19 posted on 12/31/2009 4:56:54 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

I’m just curious. Where does the Constitution delegate to the national government the authority to have a police force and/or to pursue sex criminals? I can’t seem to find it. In fact, I can’t find any delegated police power in the Constitution, but I must be looking in the wrong place.


20 posted on 12/31/2009 5:01:32 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

Oh I will vote for Scott. You betcha.

As a lifelong MA resident I loved your Homepage.Very clever.

I’m planning on ringing in the New Year by brushing my teeth.


21 posted on 12/31/2009 5:16:56 PM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Huck, where in the US Constitution does a pedophile have the right to violate a child’s being, and expect to flee to another state scot free?

We have a lot of crazy laws in the US, I’m sure a first year law student could find foundation in the Constitution to protect a child.

Child vs Perv = easy answer for me.


22 posted on 12/31/2009 5:18:05 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

That’s the liberal way - let the voters decide, at least until they decide against the liberal way, then go the liberal way by fiat.


23 posted on 12/31/2009 5:28:41 PM PST by gthog61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776
History will record that it was Mitt "Carpetbagger" Romney
who brutally imposed gay marriage by his fiat on the Mass. citizenry.
Fascist Romney, against the Mass. Constitution, forced gay marriage on the citizens by using improper executive authority.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor Bishop Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.

"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."

Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...

Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."

"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."

And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:

* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.

"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

24 posted on 12/31/2009 5:42:13 PM PST by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776
and expect to flee to another state scot free?

As I read it, that is covered by Art IV, Sect 2. Unfortunately, it doesn't say WHO is supposed to deliver the perp back to the original state. I would think that unless a federal police force is authorized elsewhere it's implied that it would be the state that is fled to which is responsible.

25 posted on 12/31/2009 5:42:16 PM PST by Darth Reardon (Im running for the US Senate for a simple reason, I want to win a Nobel Peace Prize - Rubio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon

Darth - we have Federal Marshalls, I’m 100% in favor of using their authority to arrest pedophiles.

There are a million in one areas where the Federal Government should get its nose out of, but I’m not sure shielding pervs is the place I would start.


26 posted on 12/31/2009 6:31:02 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Diogenesis - only an IDIOT would deny the SJC imposed gay marriage upon Massachusetts with a willing Legislature.

All one has to do is go to my homepage and look at the number of Dems in the Legislature vs the number of Republicans.

SJC ruling + super majority = doesn’t matter what Romney thinks.

Again, I invite you to go look at my page and look at the numbers - I’ve added color to make it easy for you.


27 posted on 12/31/2009 6:35:14 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

I get what you’re saying. It’s of no concern to you whether or not the national government is violating the Constitution, as long as they do it in pursuit of a goal you agree with. Thanks for clearing that up.


28 posted on 12/31/2009 7:11:28 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Huck

“Where does the Constitution delegate to the national government the authority to have a police force and/or to pursue sex criminals? I can’t seem to find it. In fact, I can’t find any delegated police power in the Constitution, but I must be looking in the wrong place.”

Let’s be clear, I posted a link about Coakley sueing the US Government to force the Federal Government (and therefore the other 49 states) to recognize Massachusetts’ Same Sex Marriage Law.

I personally object to the fact that in a 4-3 decision that a panel of thugs in black robes ruling on a state law can then force the Federal Government & 49 other states to follow their edict.

Again the citizens of Massachusetts were not allowed to vote on it.

The Legislature refused to vote on it.

The Governor received no bill to sign nor veto.

Did you know in Massachusetts with a judge’s permission a child as young as 12 can get married.

So in your world a 50 year old named Barney can marry a 12 year old boy named Buck and everyone in the nation should except it as they travel around the country, hmm I understand where you are coming from methinks.

Personally I’m going to side with the kid’s right to Life, Freedom, & the Pursuit of Happiness free of Molestation.

I’m silly like that.


29 posted on 12/31/2009 8:17:04 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

The California of the East Coast.
A black hole would do wonders right in the center of the state.


30 posted on 12/31/2009 9:04:35 PM PST by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

Are these gay marriage advocates going to challenge Roe vs. Wade for usurping state laws?


31 posted on 12/31/2009 9:22:35 PM PST by Dr. North
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

I’m just trying to make clear that the Constitution’s “limited powers” is irrelevant and easily ignored by conservatives and leftists alike.


32 posted on 12/31/2009 9:45:09 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776
we have Federal Marshalls, I’m 100% in favor of using their authority to arrest...

If we do have Federal cops, I'm okay with them using their authority to arrest... well, anything they have authority to.

But, if the Constitution doesn't authorize a Federal police force (we may have one, but I'm not yet convinced that it is legally justified), then it doesn't matter I may want them to do.

There's a lot of stuff I think the Constitution gets wrong, or isn't clear about, etc. But it still needs to be treated as if it were the law of the land.

33 posted on 12/31/2009 10:05:19 PM PST by Darth Reardon (Im running for the US Senate for a simple reason, I want to win a Nobel Peace Prize - Rubio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776
No matter how nasty and vituperous you are for Romney,
you are WRONG.

The Judges in the SJC made a ruling about 'gay marriage'.

The Massachusetts Constitution did not allow a change ...
except carpetbagger, backstabber Romney (your Master)
does not really care about Constitutions (certainly not
on from a state which Romney was merely using between
Michigan, Utah and California).

Romney imposed gay marriage by his fiat along.
Romney (unnatural citizen,himself, in that sense) imposed it against the Mass. Constitution by using improper executive authority.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor Bishop Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

Fascism is OK when your side does it, right?

34 posted on 01/01/2010 4:29:10 AM PST by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776; Ben Mugged; Blood of Tyrants; grundle; chargers fan; VRWC For Truth; ...
The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents.

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices… So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself..."

(see also: United States v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)


35 posted on 01/01/2010 4:41:00 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
IIRC, in 1878, Utah was not yet a state. It was a federal territory, so the question of whether or not marriage is a reserved state power or not was not argued before the court. The question of whether the national government has the power to regulate marriage in the states was not argued. The only question related to marriage specifically that was argued was a 1st amendment argument. Therefore, Reynolds v. United States did NOT confirm the statutory regulation of marriage practices in the STATES.

It did argue that federal law trumps religion, despite the 1st amendment, which, when you think about it, tends to weaken the traditional marriage argument. The fed court may indeed use Reynolds to solidify gay marriage, if the only argument against it is based on religion.

36 posted on 01/01/2010 7:57:01 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Relying on SCOTUS rulings is a tricky, dangerous thing. Check this out from Loving v Virginia, which made laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Notice it says the freedom to marry or not marry another "person." Ruh-roh. I sure hope the libs on the SCOTUS haven't read that one!

Here in NJ, I vote against gay marriage whenever it comes up. They did pass civil unions here. As far as I can tell, it's a state matter. I don't see the delegated power in the Constitution. And while those of us in NJ or MA may not like the outcome, leaving it to the states is superior to consolidating the whole matter under federal authority. The outcome there will be imposed on everyone from Maine to Mississippi, from Washington to Florida, and if the final decision comes from the SCOTUS, it will be without appeal. Be careful what you wish for.

37 posted on 01/01/2010 8:05:26 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Reynolds v. United States did NOT confirm the statutory regulation of marriage practices in the STATES.

Therefore the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Slick Willie) is null and void...

38 posted on 01/01/2010 2:26:13 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The fed court may indeed use Reynolds to solidify gay marriage, if the only argument against it is based on religion.

Religion is the only argument FOR faggot marriages...

Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.

The facts of biology trump religion.

39 posted on 01/01/2010 2:30:33 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776

Yikes. You have Maggie Marshall’s picture on your home page!


40 posted on 01/01/2010 2:30:42 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

I do indeed! First you have to click on the “Massachusetts, A Quinn Martin Production” link to get in the proper frame of mind. Then you can scroll down the photos of the perps, like Teddy at Chappaquiddick, Barney, Reid & Peolsi stealing from the piggy bank in broad daylight, Marshall followed by the “Brothers Bulger”, felons The Finneran & Flaherty (both former Speakers of the Mass House, then De Masi - again another Speaker forced to step down - Dems all;
there’s the perv Marzilli & Scondras ,kick back suspects Wilkerson & Turnser, the drunk Galluccio.

There’s links under each of their photos.

I think she fits right in.


41 posted on 01/01/2010 2:57:36 PM PST by Sparky1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Therefore the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Slick Willie) is null and void...

Assuming it reaches the SCOTUS, it will be hard to predict the outcome. The AG is of course correct. Marriage is a state matter. But what will the justices say? Obviously, the liberals will vote based on the outcome, so that's 4 votes for states' rights (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Souter.) All they need is one more. Justice Thomas, imo, would be the one to watch. Unlike Scalia, who cherry-picks his originalism, Thomas tends to uphold the Constitution even when it pisses off the big gubmint social conservatives. It's too soon to tell what Alito or Roberts would do with a case like this. Kennedy, for once, won't be a factor.

42 posted on 01/01/2010 5:24:03 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The facts of biology trump religion.

There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the national government the power to enforce biology. The national government is supposedly limited to the powers delegated in Article 1, Section 8. If you can find me the part where regulation of marriage is enumerated, feel free to post it.

43 posted on 01/01/2010 5:26:32 PM PST by Huck (The Constitution is an outrageous insult to the men who fought the Revolution." -Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson