State of Massachusetts Sues Federal Government Over DOMA
Published July 08, 2009 @ 10:02AM PT
Strike another blow against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This time it comes in the form of a lawsuit filed on behalf of the State of Massachusetts by Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is suing the federal government. The reason? Coakley believes (and we agree) that DOMA interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit.
This is welcome news. The state that became the first to legalize marriage equality in the nation now becomes the first state to officially sue the federal government over denying equal rights to its gay and lesbian citizens.
This lawsuit joins two other high profile cases taking the federal government to task over the Defense of Marriage Act. The first is the Smelt case, which resulted in the infamous Justice Department brief that drew the wrath of LGBT activists around the country for its careless portrayal of homosexuality and its opinion that DOMA was "rational." The second case, which the government must respond to by September, is a case filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). (We're leaving out the Olson-Boies case. Though it will have a major impact on the future of marriage equality, my understanding is that this case doesn't hit DOMA directly, but Proposition 8.)
It's hard to say how each of these three cases will pan out. But one thing is crystal clear: the energy behind repealing DOMA has never been greater. That's a buzz that MA Attorney General Martha Coakley had to be aware of when she submitted her lawsuit this morning. Her lawsuit only adds to the momentum to do away with DOMA.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
John Kerry Rips Apart the Defense of Marriage Act
-
Obama Says Banning Gay Marriage Good for the Federal Government?
-
A Concerted Effort to Sue the U.S. Government Over the Defense of Marriage Act
Comments (17)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michael is the Communications Director for the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, and previously was Communications Director for Pax Christi USA, a progressive Catholic human rights organization.
Featured Gay Rights Actions
-
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
12552 People
-
Help Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act!
-
This is excellent news, Michael. It will be interesting to watch this lawsuit unfold. Thanks for continuing to provide much-needed coverage of these type of events!
Posted by Ted Nunn on 07/08/2009 @ 10:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The intolerant DOMA has no choice but to be repealed in order to make way for the greatness of equality for the LGBT community. It's great that Attorney General Martha Coakley has done the correct thing by suing the federal government because of the intolerant DOMA. The use of religion to oppress LGBT people is unjustified, thus the right of same-sex marriage is one the LGBT people deserve. With other lawsuits against DOMA, there must only be progress for LGBT rights.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 07/08/2009 @ 03:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is wonderful news! I believe that marriage equality will have to come on the federal level. Otherwise we will have nothing but crap like Maine where the Legislature has passed an equality bill and the right wing has pulled this crap with getting it on the ballot. This is a civil rights issue and should not be put up to a vote. What if someone doesn't like Latinos or African-Americans, or (fill-in-the-blank)? Should these people have their rights voted on? I don't think so. Neither should GLBTQ Americans.
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 07/08/2009 @ 08:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I completely agree with you. Someone SHOULD be filing a legal brief challenging the validity of such a ballot measure before it gets on the ballot.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 07/09/2009 @ 12:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There has been much criticism of Obama of late on this issue with people not seeming to recognize limits on Executive power. This current news is really the beginning of real federal change on the issue. It will have to come via the Judicial or Legislative branches.
Obama can really be little more than a cheerleader on this (at it seems that he is for the most part). Keep the pressure up on the state level and on the Judiciary and Congress.
Any chance of getting other states that allow same-sex marriage to challenge this seperately or as part of the same lawsuit?
Posted by William Brown on 07/09/2009 @ 09:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
William, most of the criticism of Obama is not about what he "can" do, it is what he has failed to do. He is the one who stated that he would use the "bully pulpit" to help bring about "change" for the LGBT community. As the CiC - he has the power to use a stop-gap order to halt the enforcement of DADT until Congress addresses it. If Congress doesn't address it, then the stop-gap can be done away with by the next president, but until then career minded servicemembers like Fehrenbach who was shoved out of the closet by a civilian wouldn't be taking place. Fehrenbach is in his 18th year of service. 2 years short of retirement status (think pension benefits.) A stop-gap ordered now would allow Fehrenbach to serve the rest of his term.
Most of us do know the limits of Obama's executive power, but he is not using that executive power in the slightest (okay, maybe in the VERY slightest).
Anyway, we are clearly on the same side, but the president could be doing more. He just won't. And I'm almost positive most of that is because of Rahm.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 07/09/2009 @ 12:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh and so you are not confused, this does not mean that I don't think we should be putting pressure on the judiciary and Congress, because I do. I think we should keep up the pressure on ALL fronts.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 07/09/2009 @ 12:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, another interesting note, Mass. is claiming that DOMA interferes with Sate's Rights governing marriage...It's usually opponents of Gay marriage who try and use that one...history is happening.
I look forward to the time when government is out of the bedroom and serves purely a civil function in regulating marriage protections.
As a social conservative, I would rather have our debate on this issue on a personal level in a civil (as in polite and respectful) format.
It's OK if we don't agree, we just don't need government trying to defend one side of this or the other. Just guarantee everyone's CIVIL rights, including their right to believe (and practice) as they wish.
Let the religious side of the debate stay where it belongs, in the churches and on a personal level. I am under the belief that most of us are capable of being mature enough to handle these disagreements on our own with government only there to guarantee that our disagreements don't lead to trying to deprive others of their rights.
Let's stop letting this issue divide us by getting rid of the civil inequalities involved. I'm certain that we can find plenty of other things that we can agree on and work together on. (like reduction of national debt, economic recovery, national defense, ending 2 wars responsibly, environmental issues, healthcare etc...)
Posted by William Brown on 07/09/2009 @ 09:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mr. Brown, have you ever thought about running for public office? If you haven't I would highly suggest you do. We NEED the voice of TRUE Conservatism representing the people. You have an excellent writing ability and in a way that conveys your message strongly and clearly.
Posted by Dave Hershey on 07/09/2009 @ 10:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No, I have a different agenda....I'm looking at spreading a message at a grassroots level...when time permits, perhaps you and I can go into that in more detail.
Posted by William Brown on 07/10/2009 @ 06:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Absolutely, we are getting there. I think it is time we take up the cloak of being the PRO-Marriage and PRO-Family group.
Marriage Equality for ALL and Equal Family Laws for ALL, e.g. as guaranteed under our Constitution.
Other groups are now fringe, completely. Wanting to be able to define marriage the way they want, unequally!!
PS. I think our song should now be "I've Got a Hammer"
go listen if you don't remember it.
Posted by Lee Dorsey on 07/10/2009 @ 06:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Other groups are now fringe, completely. Wanting to be able to define marriage the way they want, unequally!!"
These groups are not as fringe as you might like to think. I'm a social conservative (a choice I believe I should be able to make for myself, not for you) who knows many people who have my same fundamental belief system. At this time, many people who basically are social conservatives are at a point where they are realizing that they were duped by the "moral majority" movement. They are coming to the conclusion that their beliefs are best expressed with how they live their daily lives, not through government. This awakening of sorts is relatively new and in a somewhat delicate condition.Dismissing them and deriding them leaves the door open for a resurgence of the same type of moral majority movement.
Posted by William Brown on 07/11/2009 @ 12:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I LOVE your idea, Lee. Those of us fighting for marriage equality actually ARE pro-marriage and since most, if not all of us have families, I believe that we are pro-family as well. I think taking those two concepts and running with them could go a long ways towards taking the discourse away from the omophobes and putting it in our home court.
And, I remember "I've Got a Hammer" very well. Not a bad choice at all.
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 07/10/2009 @ 11:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
William, I would hope that some of the social conservatives would come out on our side. Whilst being somewhat leftist politically, I honestly believe in the values of marriage and fidelity--for myself if no one else. This is why my spouse and I married legally in Canada a couple of years ago. I am old-fahioned enough for me that it's marriage or nothing for me--I just wish I knew of some way to get some support from people who, if they knew me, know that I share many of their values.
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 07/11/2009 @ 02:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ioan,
It's coming, just give it time. More social conservatives like myself are realizing that tolerance does not mean that they are betraying their beliefs.
I have regular business dealings with a gay couple now, and frankly, we agree to disagree on a couple of personal matters, and have moved on to all the other things that we do agree on. As a nation we need to be able to do the same.
I won't pretend for the sake of political correctness to have other beliefs, but neither do I have the right (in a civil sense) to deny you the right to yours. Furthermore, treating you or anyone else disrespectfully or in a hateful manner goes against my values as well.
By the way, I like your posts.
Posted by William Brown on 07/11/2009 @ 09:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you William. I really believe that picturing marraige equality and full adoption rights as family-friendly and pro-marriage is one of the avenues of attack that will help us. Why do the homophobes get to dictate what family is when there are so many different kinds of family: nuclear, extended, families of choice....? Why do homophobes get to dictate what marraige is?
Posted by Ioan Lightoller on 07/11/2009 @ 06:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Its a arrogant view of power and control. When it comes to oppression the oppressors are rare in even sharing a fraction of what they consider theirs to those they subject to dehumanization. They did this to the Native Americans, African Americans, Women, Children, Disabled and now Gay people. Its a never ending vicious cycle of people who lack compassion and use fear and slippery slope fallacies to morally police their constituents into siding with them.
Posted by Chris Marshall on 07/20/2009 @ 08:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.