Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...US: Mass. can’t “force” federal gay marriage
10.30.2009 3:00pm EDT
(Washington) States that allow gay marriage can’t force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples, the Obama administration argued Friday in court papers in a lawsuit by Massachusetts.
The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts – the first state to allow gay marriage – over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.
The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.
The law “does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages,” according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.
Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.
“There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” according to the 36-page filing.
The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Massachusetts is the first state to sue the government over the DOMA law. Some gay couples have filed their own lawsuits challenging the law, but this case is unique in pitting a state against the federal government over the issue.
Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state “can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits.”
“Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses,” she said.
In earlier filings, the government has sought to dismiss the DOMA lawsuits brought by individuals.
The Massachusetts case could also have implications for Democratic Party politics. The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is trying to win the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, at the same time her office is leading the lawsuit against the Democratic administration on the issue of gay rights.
The lawsuit brought by Massachusetts says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married since the state allowed it in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.
Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans’ cemetery.
Besides Massachusetts, five other states – Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa – have legalized gay marriage.
Gee…..
Mass. gay couples cannot claim federal benefits – and yet they CAN violate the DOMA by legally marrying in defiance of Federal law.
Color me confused – and disgusted.
Obama needs to get on the right side of this one. A state-registered marriage is a marriage, period. The federal government cannot deny recognition of that marriage based on who the two spouses are. Does Obama really want the humiliation of having DOMA overturned by the conservative Roberts court? Why isn’t Obama defending the constitution that he swore to defend, instead of DOMA, which he is not obligated to defend? He isn’t enforcing drug law anymore. How is DOMA different?
I’m afraid this is one issue that Obama is not going to ‘get out front on’ during his first term.
He may be brilliant – but he isn’t all that brave when it comes to doing anything that might anger his political opponents.
And that goes from GLBT issues to Iraq policy to torture to any of a dozen other areas where his words were stirring but his actions strangely missing.
Just to be clear; DOMA prohibits virtually nothing at the state level. Marriage equality in any state does not violate DOMA. DOMA provides other states with the option of not legally recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere and, if I’m not mistaken, further prohibits the FEDERAL government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages for the purpose of providing benefits.
Needless to say the Justice Department’s argument irks me not a little bit. While it is true that the federal government can provide benefits as it sees fit, there is nonetheless an equal protection argument to be made. If the federal government is going to provide benefits to legally married couples, can it then go on to decide WHICH married couples get those benefits or do all those holding state-issued marriage licenses need to be treated the same way? Arguably DOMA violates the Constitution in various ways, but getting the federal courts to recognize this will be a difficult fight.
How did the repeal of DOMA get to the bottom of Obama’s to do list anyway?
Obama can wave his magic want and make a trillion dollars appear for banks, can sign complex stimulus packages and reorganize the health care sector, — all in the first year of being president — but can’t remove this law from the books? I am not buying it.
A cowardly response from this administration…if we agree that the Constitution has no affect on our marriages then why does it affect State marriages that are heterosexual. Shouldn’t they be denied SS benefits on this grounds as well. After all just because Mass. married 2 straight people why should the Fed. gov. recognize this and confer benefits to them upon the death of one of the spouses. Sounds like they want it both ways. There is no Fed. mandate for us….just them. B###sh*T.
Oh, Barack. Once again. Do you like shooting yourself in the foot? Let’s try this. DOMA infringes on state sovereignty because it imposes an arbitrary and discriminatory exclusionary standard for a portion of the population. States set marriage policy, and previously the Feds have asserted their authority only to loosen state restrictions–Griswold v Connecticut being one example, Loving v Virginia another. There’s no outstanding precedent for Federal law being used to *exclude* people from the benefits of marriage AFTER the state approved it. Historically, the law goes broader, not narrower.
Perhaps the President thinks that it’s better to argue the tightest case possible in order to eventually get rid of DOMA. Of course, he could just recognize the fundamental wrongness of the law, but instead he’s doing the same thing that legislators did until the mid-60’s on civil rights questions–his administration seems to be arguing that a right can’t exist if it’s not stated in law. As in the current law allowing for discrimination against gays, and specifically gays who are married under the laws of their respective states.
Simplified from Obamaspeak, here’s what’s what. You can be gay and get married. You can have a law recognizing that gays are attacked just for being gay. But you can’t have any Federal benefits, even though similar race-based discrimination has been knocked down. In fact, interracial couples were blocked at the state level, not the Federal, and have never been blocked from joint income tax filing, or Social Security eligibility. But gays get to stay under that onerous DOMA law because Obama is too much of a coward to let that sorry piece of legislative bigotry go away.
I’ll also throw out this unfair but emotionally on-point observation. Obama would never stand for the same Federal discrimination against a visible minority. He actually GOES TO BAT for DOMA. The first black President is perfectly content to let legal discrimination continue. If MLK (or Coretta, for that matter) were still alive, I don’t doubt they would take him to task in a public way. If you don’t fight a wrong, you’re part of making it continue. Or maybe a phrase Obama has heard before would help–justice delayed is justice denied.
I don’t want to be seen as defending Obama here, but his administration DOES have an obligation to actively defend laws passed by Congress if there is a reasonable defense to a challenge to those laws. In this case there is a perfectly reasonable challenge – DOMA prohibits Federal recognition of same-sex marriages, and as such the Federal Government cannot legally grant benefits to a married couple it cannot legally recognize as being married.
Don’t misunderstand me – DOMA is a vile piece of legislation, it is wholly insidious and it infringes on the basic human rights of millions of people. However, it is a law passed by Congress and until it is repealed Obama’s administration has a duty to defend against legal challenges to it.
Let’s just hope they don’t provide an enthusiastic defense – and that this challenge can be used to highlight the plethora of injustices DOMA has created and pave the way to its repeal.
What obligation does Obama have to persecute us under DOMA? I would order my administration to enforce the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, not DOMA. When will gays start to ask the hard questions? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKdANxJw4ho
Let’s start taking a critical look at our Prince perfect — Barack Obama — and ask whether gay rights is a political priority, or a substantive priority. Substantive priorities require immediate action, like bank bailouts, stimulus packages and health care. If Obama is trying to fool us, with token gestures, and not substantive repeals of hate laws on the books, we will be very, very ANGRY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWHjCwtryVg
DADT and DOMA HAVE TO GO.
Are you actually reading the comments here and at other gay political sites? Yes a small mimnority will give Obama as many breaks possible but the rest of “he community” is impatient with the man. The “critical look” you say needs to happen has been going on for awhile.
James
Obama….why am I not surprised?????? How about since gay couples don’t have equal marriage rights; we all stop paying federal taxes??? Sounds fair to me!!!
Isaac, are you high? The President can direct the Attorney General to NOT argue for or enforce a law. That’s an established point of Presidential authority. Following your logic, LBJ broke the law by advocating for the Civil Rights Act.
I’ll say it again. I want to see President Obama succeed. Success includes being on the right side of history on this civil rights issue. He doesn’t do something to encourage repeal of these two laws, he renders himself morally impotent. Any time he presents something as the morally right thing to do–healthcare, energy, VA funding, foreign aid or intervention–the floor is open for the GOP to remind him and the country (and the world) that he refuses to follow through on issues he’s cited as moral issues. He’ll be damned by his own words and lack of action, and there’s nothing the Dems will be able to do to soften that.
Isaac, you are completely incorrect.
President Obama has an obligation to uphold the Constitution, first and foremost. That is the Oath that he took on 1/20/2009. DOMA is unconstitutional, clear and simple – it denies us our rights under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the 14th Amendment.
Obama has an option in front of him right now. Tell the AG to stop defending it in court, and send a CLEAR message to Congress saying “Repeal DOMA”. Better yet, he could draft a bill and send it to Congress to Repeal DOMA. Anything else short of that is but lip service and wishy washy B.S.
The way the system works is for us to call and write our representatives, whether at the Local, State or Federal level, and voice our opinions. Our Reps. need to hear from us. One call = 500. Call every day. Or when you think of it. Snail mail is very effective. Email. Then, if we get a bill, Obama will sign it.