Skip to comments.Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law
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 states 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 ...
This is a fight we can’t afford to lose!
Oops the election is obviously in 2010.
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.
All of a sudden, liberals are worried about states’ rights.
I voted for Ron Paul, and I agree with him that the federal government has no authority to be involved in this issue.
this is one of the reasons I left
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?
States rights regarding abortion = bad
And the GOP has already abandoned him.
It seems a lot of people like the Nanny State, just as long as they can be the nanny.
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?
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.
The federal law is Constitutional. The MA law is not. Judicial fiat.
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.
“When will the push to take America back from the destroyers begin?”
Jan 19, 2010
Vote for Scott Brown!
..... 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.
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!
Or, if you like the Defense of Marriage Act:
Big government regarding homosexual marriage = good
Big government regarding abortion = bad
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.