Share

Federal Law Excluding Gay Marriage Is Under Siege

by: Michael B. Farrell  |  The Christian Science Monitor

photo
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argues that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. (Photo: AP)

    Massachusetts is not the first to sue against the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But it could be the most important.

    San Francisco - Five years after it became the first state to marry same-sex couples, Massachusetts is taking on the federal government's definition of marriage.

    While other lawsuits have challenged the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed in 1996 and defined marriage as between a man and woman, Massachusetts is the first to argue that Congress overstepped its bounds and violated a state's right to determine what constitutes marriage.

    The lawsuit once again places Massachusetts at the edge of the same-sex marriage debate. Observers say the suit could become a landmark case in an issue playing out across the country, and add to growing pressure to undo the federal DOMA, which many groups opposed to same-sex marriage see as paramount in holding the line against marriage reform.

    "Marriage discrimination in states, and at the federal level, all boils down to the question of whether there is any legitimate reason to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples," says Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a leading gay and lesbian rights organization.

    She says Massachusetts has a strong case because it challenges DOMA at a fundamental level - family law has historically been the province of states.

    At least two other suits are challenging the federal DOMA. One filed in March by several same-sex couples argues that the act unfairly prevents them from benefiting from some 1,000 federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples.

    Supporters of the federal DOMA say that the act promotes states rights since it protects states from having to recognize same-sex couples married elsewhere.

    "States are generally required to honor the public laws of other states under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. The exception is when those laws are contrary to the strong public policy of that state," said the Alliance for Marriage Foundation, an anti-gay marriage group, in a statement. It adds, "[DOMA] articulates what has been implicit in federal law for more than 200 years - that 'marriage' is a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and the term 'spouse' is a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife."

    There are 37 states limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

    Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argues that it's unconstitutional "for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages." Gay and lesbian couples legally married in Massachusetts are blocked from federal programs such as Social Security survivor benefits and federal estate tax exemptions because of DOMA, she says.

    Her suit focuses on two programs: MassHealth, the state's Medicaid program, and the burial of Massachusetts veterans and their spouses at cemeteries owned by the state. If Massachusetts were to extend benefits to same-sex couples under those programs, it could lose millions in federal funding.

    President Obama called for repealing the federal DOMA during his electoral campaign, but has since been criticized by activists for not taking a strong stance on gay rights. When Mr. Obama expanded some federal benefits to same-sex couples in June, he reiterated that he thought DOMA was "discriminatory," interfered with states' rights, and "we will work with Congress to overturn it."

    In response, the Family Research Council questioned the legality of the order and "whether the President has the authority to ignore DOMA and bypass the legislative process…."

    Same-sex marriage is now legal in six states, and New York and Washington, D.C., now recognize same-sex marriages that have been performed elsewhere.

    --------

    Monitor intern Tracey Samuelson contributed to this report.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The Massachusetts judiciary

The Massachusetts judiciary got it wrong when it couldn't distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, and now the Attorney General has it wrong when she can't distinguish between regulating marriage (a state's right) and the criteria for awarding federal benefits (the Congress's right). If we follow Massachusetts through the looking glass, pretty soon war will be peace, freedom will be slavery, and strength will be ignorance. Enough.

Curious that these same

Curious that these same arguments were used against interracial couples not that long ago. Seems there may be more important things for government to do than interfere with whom one wants to join in a monogamous, committed relationship.

I can't understand why there

I can't understand why there is such a big deal over marriages hetero or same sex. I was married for almost 21 years and frankly I'm content being single again. M remote is my own, and I don't have to listen to the snoring all night. I don't feel threatened by same sex marriages, and frankly it's time for the people who oppose this to seek professional help about their hang ups. It's not like they are being forced into same sex marriage.

The fact of the matter is

The fact of the matter is people are trying to use religion as an excuse for being prejudice. Which is appalling because our own first amendment mentions separation of church and state. Religious people often argue that marriage is sacred and the government has no right to infringe on their beliefs of a heterosexual marriage only. Yet, they bestowed upon couples other rights (that are NOT apart of domestic partnerships or plain boyfriend/girlfriend situations): to see spouse in hospital, receive benefits in time of death, exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse, obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer, making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment, receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance and many other benefits being withheld from same sex couples. As soon as the government gets involved with a so called "religious" practice, it is no longer looked upon as just that, it is now a right to be married. To argue this is ridiculous, especially since those who oppose have few standing arguments of why exactly they cannot tolerate it. A right is given to any persons, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation. So why is this such a hard debate? I'm not surprised, yet in the same sense I am bewildered. Did we not just go through segregation and slavery not too long ago? Now we have a new prejudice on the block and everyone is acting like this is the only time something like this has ever happened. Come on people, learn from the past! I suppose we never do, do we?

Alas, Jaya Jogi stereotypes.

Alas, Jaya Jogi stereotypes. I, for ezample, have no religious beliefs regarding homosexuality and do not believe marriage is sacred, but do believe that same-sex couples are not entitled to it. As Justice Zarella said in the Connecticut gay marriage case, the basis of marriage is biology, not bigotry. Whether two people who live together and share expenses are entitled to see each other in the hospital, share each other's group insurance benefits, or receive other benefits is largely unrelated to whether they are sexually attracted to one another. When gays stop using "benefits" as a stalking horse to appropriate "marriage," we'll have an intelligent debate on what benefits should or should not be conditioned on "marriage. " That doesn't seem likely to happen soon.