Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law

Boston.com ^ | July 9, 2009 | Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman

[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.

[Sparky1776]

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.

[Huck]

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.

[Huck]

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.