Mass. sues over Defense of Marriage Act

AG Holder ought be filing this suit.

I never understood how DOMA gets over Article IV, Section 1 (The Full Faith and Credit Clause). Aren't states constitutionally required to recognize legal documentation and rights granted state to state?

Awesome. Their legal argument seems really solid. And the scope is narrow enough(only effecting the five states that have actually legalized it) that even the conservative court we have might defer to actual law on this one instead of ideology.

What is right will always prevail...and what is right is to allow all consenting adults to marry - opposite or same sex. The bigots that hate gays due to religious reasons or stupidy may out number us...but we will eventually overcome every obstacle they put in place to discriminate against us.

It's about time that equal rights with respect to marriages occurs for gays and lesbians.

It's most excellent that Mass. filed their lawsuit.

After all, if the federal government really wanted a "Defense of Marriage Act" they would have made getting a divorce a felony (or at least a misdemeanor)

God Bless Massachusetts.

The most important thing is what happens when the suit is appealed to the Supreme Court. What will Justice Kennedy do? If he votes with the liberal members, then it will strike down DOMA. If he votes with the conservatives, it will uphold DOMA.

Ironic, considering that "same-sex marriage" in Massachusetts is itself the product of blatant disregard for the state constitution and over 200 years of legal precedent. Such turnabout is typical of social revolutionaries - tearing down authority one moment, and demanding respect for their new order the next.

Once again, Martha Coakley shows she's more interested in grand standing than in actually doing an effective job as AG.

The difference between being a man or a woman and being heterosexual or homosexual is that gender (or sex) is a biological classification that can be proven, i.e. this man has testes or this woman has a uterus, et cetera et cetera. Homosexuals only have their word.

While I don't see a problem with homosexuals doing what they do, or enjoying the same privileges as heterosexuals, I would rather they enjoy those privileges without the auspices of marriage. Basically, grant them the same privileges only under the title of "civil union" or whatever they want, but not marriage. The homosexual movement touts their demand for tolerance, but it's really about intolerance; intolerance of those who see marriage as between a man and woman. Heterosexuals are apparently supposed to tolerate homosexuals infinitely, but the homosexuals don't indicate any reciprocity.

Ok I do not have a problem with who marries who but to change the meaning of a union leaves the door open to a person who loves their dog ,goat, sheep, whatever.
Once you redefine one then anything can become a union , How about a car ,bike.
What will stop the amendment's once they start?
Don't give me the that wont happen thing you know as I do once thing's start there is no end in this free thinking country of ours.
And of course they will want tax breaks for their mates.

Once again, Massachusetts is at the front of the pack on the far left agenda, embarrassing the few moderates that remain.

If we allow gay marriage, do we also have to allow Muslims to have 4 wives? And do we only allow Muslims to have 4 wives? What about others? Do we have to allow the Mormons to practice polygamy? Do we allow 50-year-old men to marry 14-year-old girls because that's done in some cultures? Why is it that gays ALWAYS claim it's ignorant religious bigots who "discriminate" against their abomination? Does anyone consider that in a Darwinian natural world w/o technology, that homosexuals would naturally die out and their would be no such thing as a transsexual? I'm agnostic and a scientist, and I think the idea of gay marriage is ludicrous. If gays want to be gay, fine. Just don't force their lifestyle on the rest of us who don't believe in it.

Polygamy (polygyny particularly) should be legal well before homosexual marriage.

Ask ten of your guy friends - would you rather be with a dude, or three chicks?

If gay is "normal", polygamy is "normaler".

Ed, you are an IDIOT. If you knew anything about what you were talking about, you would know that marriage is essentially a contract. That means that both parties have to be able to consent to make it valid. How is a dog, a bike, a sheep going to consent to a marriage? None of them can, they lack the mental capacity to do so. Thus, there is no way any marriage like that could ever be valid legally.

Please get your GED before you start talking, it might save us all a few brain cells.

@ed: Why do the arguments invariably head straight to bestiality? So absurd, and so offensive.

However, if you're going to play that game, here is the reason that a person cannot marry his or her cat, goat, or bicycle: a cat, goat, or bicycle does not have agency and cannot consent to enter into such a union.

"Such turnabout is typical of social revolutionaries - tearing down authority one moment, and demanding respect for their new order the next." -- Daniel C.

Much like certain revolutionaries about 233 years ago, eh?

"grant them the same privileges only under the title of "civil union" or whatever they want, but not marriage." -- Yackem

Ah, the good old "Separate but Equal" concept. Thought we dumped that one about 60 years ago? Maybe not.

"to change the meaning of a union leaves the door open to a person who loves their dog ,goat, sheep, whatever." -- ed

Sure, because dogs, goats, sheep, even cars and bikes are the same as people. Or are you saying that you view women as the same pets and property?

Well if a dog, goat, sheep, car or bike gains sentience and can all of a sudden talk and form political action committees and protest for its rights and sign and understand legal marriage documents then I don't see the problem.

Do you not understand the difference? Your analogy is baaaaaaaaad.

There will always be hate mongers all over the country, but fortunately Mass. is a relatively progressive state where people don't go out of their way to take away it's rights from it's citizens. There are plenty out there who will go to anti-gay protests and will try to implement their church's laws into our government's laws. That kind of stuff works in Ohio and Arkansas but won't work in Mass.

I'm straight and I fully support gays right to marry because we're all human. This is no different than the laws prohibiting interracial marriage which were only declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Again, it's the bigots and the religious that want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage". Well geuss what? Nobody has destroyed the sanctity of marriage more than heterosexuals.

"If gays want to be gay, fine. Just don't force their lifestyle on the rest of us who don't believe in it." -- John

Right... because even the straight folks in MA are forced into homosexual marriages now, right? Don't force your lifestyle on others.

And if you were really a "scientist" you'd know that homosexuality does occur in the "Darwinian natural world w/o technology." (Hint: google "And Tango Makes Three".)

Dear pie-kun if they allow this why should they need to have consent they will just change that too!
Get a life and be something other than a bore.
One thing is true if you are gay the only way you will have natural kids is to do it our way otherwise just like every lazy part of society you will have to have someone else do it for you!

Gay rights has nothing to do with rights. Just a sense of entitlement to behavior that no one else really cares to support or wants to be a part of. So quit your bitching and stop brainwashing our kids.

Who needs gay rights, when any 'hole' will suffice.

Gays have enough rights, their brainwashing our kids at a very early age.

Marriage rights, procreation rights.....it's all a farce. If they were a legitimate group then they wouldn't have to group together with the other illlegitimates like the femi-nazis, etc.

no reason that straight kids should be subjected to homosexual teachings in public schools.

"Why do the arguments invariably head straight to bestiality? So absurd, and so offensive." -- Stacey

Because guys like ed cannot see the difference between women (whom they can and do marry) and goats, sheep, etc. (that they cannot marry). They view women as pets and as property, not as equals. Therefore, in their eyes, if you change the law such that "women" are not the only "objects" that can be married, then it opens the door to marrying other "objects". Very sad.

I'm NOT overly concerned with the (absurd) notion of someone marrying their moose, hippopotumus, lion, badger, car, pet rock, etc. It would make for some strange pornography, I suppose...
I have 4 cats; They've NEVER expressed the slight interest in marrying me - I guess they're willing to risk their 'immortal souls', living in sin...
I AM concerned that the so-called 'fight' against marriege equality, (with all the serious problems currently facing humanity), is led by people who contributed to, and organizations who have refused, thus far, to reign in their pederastic believer members, (aka, 'corporate officers').
Although I left the Catholic church in the '60's, (for Odinic NeoPaganisim), I'd be pleased to see EVERY, ('closeted') 'GAY' PRIEST, MONK, NUN, BISHOP, CARDINAL, ETC, COME OUT...
...What could the church do if these 'pseudo_moralists' were honest and did the right thing, (coming-out)? Call for back-up? Request the '2nd Coming'??!!
...This church, which claims to be in the 'morality deciphering' busineee, has, among other outstanding efforts, payed BILLIONS, (...of 'believer dollars'), to
hush up centuries of child molestation!
This same organization recently excommunicated a Brazillian woman for obtaining an abortion for her 9 year old; ...NOT excommunicating the jailed, alleged-rapist father...
Does ANYONE really believe a 9 year old child must, for 'moral reasons', be compelled to give birth? Really?
Why would ANYONE listen to such overt, 'organized criminality', posing as moral authority?!!

I think it's rather telling that all of the arguments in favor of gay marriage and gay rights are quite articulate, while those opposing tend to sound like they were written by a cranky fourth-grader. The educated have open minds.

Uncle Roger,
"Ah, the good old 'Separate but Equal' concept. Thought we dumped that one about 60 years ago? Maybe not."

I understand your intention, but sexual orientation is not even remotely comparable to race. Any sighted person can look at me and identify me as white. Could they determine my sexual orientation? No. Sure, one could reason that some stereotypical behavior or accoutrement distinguishes someone as "gay" or "straight", but these are arbitrary.

In no way is this next comment designed to reduce the homosexual "condition", but for illustration purposes, consider this hypothetical:
My particular interests in a female include large breasts and making love under a mirrored ceiling.
Should these purely sexual preferences (though shallow on the surface) afford me civil rights different from my straight male friend who prefers women with small breasts and likes to make love in the dark?

if we called it giving marriage rights to "men who like to have anal sex with other men" would that change people's attitudes...is this really just a tax break issue? i think it's kinda absurd myself. from the comments on these types of posts, most of the "hate" is toward the conservatives...so chill out. marriage is what it is...an agreement between man and woman to partner and conceive children to continue to human race. why not just a civil union? why force everyone to pay your tax breaks and medicals expenses?

If two men can marry why can't a man have 10 wives? How about a 12 year old girl? Should gay brothers or sisters be allowed to marry? Why not? Why is bestiality absurd? Sure, it is unnatural and gross but many say the same about homosexuality.
Where do you draw the line? When it gets to you? What about the next person down who is into something weirder? What about their rights?
Personally, I think you should be able to marry whomever or whatever you want.
However, our laws, taxes, property, debts, insurance, etc are structured around marriage. Rather than being merely a private or spiritual bond as it should be, it is a major legal one as well. If you start letting people marry whomever or whatever they want, it creates havoc with the foundation of laws that govern us.

"Should these purely sexual preferences (though shallow on the surface) afford me civil rights different from my straight male friend who prefers women with small breasts and likes to make love in the dark?" -- Yackem

Of course not. And that is my point. Why should sexual preferences be a reason to deny some people civil rights enjoyed by others? You can get married. I can get married. Why can't everyone, regardless of sexual preferences? Why does it matter whether someone prefers large breasts or small breasts or no breasts at all? (and shouldn't marriage be about love and respect rather than sex anyway?)

K-Lind,
Please articulate how one proves their sexual orientation. I can prove I'm a man in a few seconds, but proving that I like women would likely lead to an endless line of questioning.

Share your thoughts.

Yackem, from how you identify gay people with sex acts, one would assume that you think being heterosexual is all about sex, too. Most sane individuals understand that not to be the case, though, as romantic and committed relationships are clearly important to both gay and straight people.

Unlike your sexual peccadilloes, which likely matter for only two or three minutes a month, we are gay 365 days a year, and our relationships are denied the same rights and recognition that straight couples get as a matter of course. (Not as a matter of intercourse.)

So, Yackem, let me get this, um, straight. What you're saying is that one's sexual preferences are just as ridiculous a way to judge people -- and to assign civil rights -- as skin color? That seems fair to me, but you also seem to support the idea of some people having honest-to-goodness state-sponsored "marriages" while others have to make do with "civil unions," at best? (This is completely aside from the fact that, by the time two people are talking about marriage, their relationship is not "purely sexual." Some of the commenters here seem to not understand that point.)

As for JimmyFL, I don't know where you went to school, but from my experience, schools teach a lot more about heterosexuality than homosexuality, especially at the indocrinating ages. Name a protagonist from a book you read in public school, or a historical figure, that was not straight (and didn't suffer horribly because of it). Even the dialogue scripts in foreign language classes are pretty heteronormative, and let's not even talk about the implications of locker rooms in physical education.

Talk about tax breaks, we all must pay for careless heterosexuals who have kids. 12 years of school tax for each child, food stamps for their single mom, provide space in divorce court, juvinile detention costs, find adoption parents for all the unwanted kids, termination of parental rights court time, parole officers to take up the juvi's cases, pay for criminal damage to property and worse, school bus rides all over town for special classes, subsidised school lunches, chase down freeloading fathers who don't pay child support, programs for daycare to get single moms back on their feet....Marriage between a man and a woman sure is grand. It certainly appears that the cost to society for gay marrige pales compared to the

costs of heterosexual marriage.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursite of Happiness. That is a concept that the Repuginicans give lip service to, but do not honor.

"Gays confuse our children."
"Gay marriage will hurt hereto marriage."
"God does not like Gay."

I'm sure you've heard the above phrases. They've all been said by idiots. Gays are not to blame if a man's marriage is falling apart with his women. Instead of blaming others, he should take a good long look in the mirror and see who is truly to blame. God bless Mass. True Americans live there.

Mass just left CA in the dust!!! Way to go!!! Wish its winters were milder. Would love to move to a CIVILIZED state. Kudos!

This is all very simple. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice; if one chooses to ignore the ovewhelming volume of empirical evidence and claim that sexual orientation is a choice, then for all practical purposes sexual orientation is entitled to the same legal protections as one's religion (also a choice). If religious conservatives have a protected right to a federally-recognized marriage performed according to their faith and doctrine, same-sex couples have the same right. End of story.

K-Lind -- Educated minds are open minds. I agree. So why are you denying nature?

The more you accept a behavior then the more it shall propetuate then before you know it, 24% of your population has been infected.

Take notes from the end of the roman empire.

"...even the conservative court we have might defer to actual law on this one instead of ideology"

Right. And monkeys will fly out of my butt.

If SCOTUS rules on this they will absolutely support DOMA. Unfortunately the constitution means whatever the Catholic majority thinks it means. And they hate gays.

(Response to comment 10)
Yackem, I used to think just as you do. However, the GLBT POV has carried the day, at least in those five states. I believe the next best thing for 'conservative' people who wish to separate religious marriage from "civil unions" - meaning marriages not condoned by certain religions- is for those certain religions is for them to specify church-approved marriages from whatever term they want to call marriages that do not meet that religion's standards. That is, it's time to recognize that one has the right to marry, and you have the right to recieve equal prtoection from the government, but you don't have the right to have your marriage recongnized by the Vatican, or whatever.

To those commenting on how this resembles Mormon polygamy: do your research, please, and note the the main Church of LDS doesn't practice polygamy and hasn't for some time.

"Educated minds are open minds. I agree. So why are you denying nature?" -- JimmyFL

Um... exactly. Since homosexuality is not uncommon in nature (even assuming that we are not part of "nature"), why are you opposed to it? Are you not the one denying nature?

It truly sadens me to hear the ridiculous, childish and fearmongering responses that this question has pulled. They are the same ones which were used to keep women, black, chinese and any other identifiable group out of the mainstream. Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender individuals (such as myself) are no threat to your percieved "natural order".

All that we desire is to do what the rest of the population does, work, pay our taxes, participate in society, as well as worship where we choose to do so. However we regularly face the uninformed, hatefilled, bigotted idiocy of those in the greater society who don't understand us, don't want to know us and wish we would all vanish.

There are many species, mainly of lizards, which can chage gender as the need arises, homosexuality has been scientifically documented in many species of mammal. Those who state that homosexuality, or transgender is against the natual order had better do more research into how things actually work. I would also like someone to tell me where in scripture (Just the canon of scripture) it says anything definate about lesbians or transgender. There is a passage in Leviticus which appears to say something against the Gay lifestyle however what it says seems to depend on what translation of the Bible you read.

Gay taxpayers are already forced to subsidize opposite-sex 'marriages' (I'll leave 'marriages' in quotes, for absurdities like Britney, and sterile couples who apparently also aren't God-approved). Gay kids are already forced to learn opposite sex ed only -- if they're lucky enough to get that. As a second-class citizen, I've been paying hellacious 1st class taxes for too long now. Note: the earth isn't the center of our solar system, and heterosexists need a larger world view, if they can manage to somehow feel less threatened by how other people conduct their personal lives.

How about this compromise -- this country formally admits to being a theocracy ruled by the Bible, and that gays are second class, then gays begin paying second class taxes with all back-taxes refunded. I could almost put up with that idiocy, more than I can the current idiocy.

the best way to quell the hate venom against gay rights is hate should be taxed according to how strong on a scale of 1-2-3 pay up or you are out,
then we can use these funds for health care for all, because i detect plenty of hate out there.dbrat

Once again we see arguments without reason such as polygamy and marrying ones cat. These argument are “scare” tactics. Polygamy is outlawed in this country not for religious justifications. We are, at least on paper, a secular egalitarian society. It is outlawed because it is anti democracy/equality. In a polygamist society the rich and / or powerful men get all the women and the poor and or powerless man is left out.

The Christian God did not opposed polygamy in certain social situations. God does not see polygamy as evil everywhere for all time.

As Americans we saw what social chaos was caused by discontented frontiersmen in Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676. The lack of women on the frontier was a significant part of that discontent.

if gay folks get married how does that force things on hetrosexuals. No ne is going to make you marry some one of the same sex. No one is going to force you to have sex with someone you dont want to. No one is even going to make you attend their wedding
The reason gays need to marry is for the same reason hetrosexuals need to marry, to express commitment and love and to receive the legal rights granted to those in committed long term relationships We are not talking. SPECIAL not DIFFERENT, but the SAME rights. When your spouse is sick, or when your child is sick, when your spouse dies, when your spouse inherits, when your spouse gets insurance at workthe list of LEGAL issues is over 100 items long, that without equal marriage rights LGBT folks are denied.

Some of you people sound like you just stepped off the screen from the "Bruno" movie....are you serious? Marry a goat? If you are going to be a homophobe own up to...don't try to make ridiculous, groundless statements about marrying goats...how is goat going to say "I Do" or even sign a marriage certificate? The real reason you make such ridiculous, foolish statements is because you know that you have no real argument to stand on...my guess is that you are very insecure about your own sexuality and probably secretly fantasize about men....you lash out with idiotic statements such as the above to try and prove to your own twisted self that you don't really have such feelings. Do us all a favor and see a shrink or come out of the closet...