Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


30

Mass. Sues US Over Definition of Marriage

Share

(Newser) – Massachusetts has challenged the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, saying it interferes with a state's right to define and regulate marriage, the Boston Globe reports. “In enacting DOMA,” the lawsuit reads, “Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.”

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, argues that “the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state.” It says 16,000 same-sex marriages have occurred since the 2004 decision, but that those couples “are still denied essential rights and protections.” An anti-gay-marriage group says DOMA has already been ruled constitutional, and “the suit will have no credibility in the federal courts.”

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.   (AP Photo)
Gay rights protesters in Boston.
Gay rights protesters in Boston.   (AP Photo)
A black flag flies over the rainbow flag that was set at half-mast in the Castro District after the California State Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage in San Francisco, Wednesday, May 27.
A black flag flies over the rainbow flag that was set at half-mast in the Castro District after the California State Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage in San Francisco, Wednesday, May 27.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still denied essential rights and protections because the federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the Commonwealth's authority to define and regulate marriage. - State of Massachusetts lawsuit

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
30 comments
VIEWING:
 
freethemall
Jul 8, 09 2:11 PM CDT
DOMA clearly not constitutional. I would be delighted if the Supreme Court rule it so. But, boy, would you hear some howls from retrograde right wing! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
Retribution
Jul 8, 09 2:38 PM CDT
"Retrograde" damn straight I'm AGAINST progressivism! Its degenerates and their appeasers who are the moral, ethical, spiritual plague upon this county and western civilization in general. Moral relativists are the most spineless creatures on earth. Put that in your pipe, bong, hookah and smoke it.....
Vote up! Vote down!
-7
IN RESPONSE:
Vorant1
Jul 8, 09 2:44 PM CDT
Here Here....Retribution!
Vote up! Vote down!
-3
IN RESPONSE:
Rembrandt_Q_Einstein
Jul 8, 09 2:49 PM CDT
Allow me to translate what Retribution really means with his rant...Ahem. "I'm an ignorant and stubborn knuckle-dragging troglodyte. If anything threatens my limited and uneducated view of the world I lash out with childish and bigoted attacks in the hopes that if I yell loud enough people will either listen to me or be scared of me to the point that they'll leave me alone to wallow in my miserable hateful life". I think got it right, but then again I don't speak "Moranese".
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Jul 8, 09 2:50 PM CDT
Retribution: Care to tell me how moral relativism applies to this situation? I must be missing something.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.