The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.Really? How so? Haven't they been issuing neutered marriage licenses for five years now? Sounds to me like they have been able to do it as they see fit.
It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.The federal government has an interest in giving benefits to couples who unite the sexes in marriage that it does not have when it comes to other kinds of voluntary associations.
Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states."Does Coakley consistently argue for states' rights, and against federal usurpation of power? Anyone know? And what about when courts usurp authority belonging to the legislature or the people directly?
Meanwhile...
In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.Too bad it didn't work out that way in California.The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether the law should stand.
The basic fact of the matter is that the union of a bride+groom is a different kind of voluntary association than the pairing of two men or two women. This is demonstrable, and should be self-evident. The federal government should not be controlled by the whims of Massachusetts.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Tim Gill is funding the "state" law suit. There's some gay advocacy group behind this.
ReplyDelete