Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs; Call Marriage Act discriminatory

[Zenlitened]

Source: Boston Globe

Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages plan to file a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died - one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds - said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The complaint is being filed in US District Court in Boston.

The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/03/same_sex_spouses_challenge_us_curbs/

[Bill McBlueState]

1. great!

I was hoping this would happen soon.

[Dappleganger]

2. Civil Rights for ALL

The Supreme Court needs to make this plain and simple.

[Ohio Joe]

4. Agreed - nt

[No Elephants]

3. I want equal rights, including marriage, for everyone. but, I am not sure this is wise at this

time. I think trying to convince someone to file legislation in Congress might be better, now that Congress is so heavily Democrat.

If you fail with legislation, you can introduce it again in six months or a year. If you fail in the SCOTUS, you're likely to be in for a long dry spell.

But, I guess people have done all the strategizing already and figured this is the way to go. The conservative nature of the current court just makes me anxious.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Agreed...taking the Roe v Wade approach is a mistake

Congress has lacked the spine to legislate nationally on abortion and now we have a nasty patchwork of laws and restrictions. Roe v Wade can also be overturned. The right answer is national legislation on marriage

[bowens43]

8. Not really...

If the court decides that the existing law is Constitutional, it can still be changed through legislation. It should be attacked on both fronts. Either way, it will likely end up before the Supreme court.

[karynnj]

12. Not to mention if it is unconstitutional

as many respected people said, this could remove it - and likely keep it from ever coming back, though that is unlikely. The tide is turning on this - there are huge generational differences - making change likely.

If it is addressed via legislation, I am not sure if we can get the Democrats in red states - and if we get them, will they be kicked out in the next election?

[gaspee]

10. I think you mean

Now that Congress is so DEMOCRATIC (not democrat) - please do not distribute RW talking points.

The ONLY way this will pass is in the courts. Our own DEMOCRATS have lacked the courage to do the right thing and will not do the right thing, as the recent actions of the New York legislature have proved.

And if the Supremes take a theocratic approach? Well, their names will go down in the history books right next to the courts who decided Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott - quite an ignoble place to be for all eternity. And like with those horrible decisions, we will eventually prevail.

If not now, then when? Ever heard of that before?

[fed_up_mother]

13. I don't think Congress will do anything, but I think it would be smarter to wait for better judges

I know it must seem like a long time if one's rights are being denied, but if we can hold the White House for eight years, surely we can force a tide change in the court.

[Zhade]

15. "Justice delayed is justice denied." - MLK

Just how long should we wait for OUR RIGHTS, oh kind sir?

[customerserviceguy]

17. You've stated it well

The impetus for equality needs to come from Congress. It would not be a major stretch for them to recognize equal marriage in MA and CT, and domestic partnerships/civil unions for equal treatment in the matters of tax law, Social Security law, and immigration law. I realize that there would be a concern about "importing" this equality to states determined not to give it, but we already have a system that distinguishes between types of marriage.

Say I get married here in NY to my lady, then we move to WA to retire. After a period of commingling of assets, everything becomes community property if we do not specify in an agreement that it is not to be construed as such, and the IRS recognizes the change in the status of our property for tax purposes.

I do worry about the legal precedents that will be set if a case makes it to the Supreme Court with whatever its makeup is likely to be for the next ten years.

[Marrah_G]

6. I know what is right, what is just, what is fair........

But I am scared to death the Supremes will push that all aside and rule from a theological point of view. Then what does that say ......

Such brave souls. I truly wish them a great victory.

[xchrom]

7. recommend

[toopers]

9. The government needs to get out of the marriage business . . .

and treat us as individuals and not parts of groups or associations.

[AlbertCat]

11. The government needs to get out of the marriage business . . .

Indeed. The Government needs only to decide what laws cover the legal status of people who live together and perhaps raise children. It's all about property and taxes and benefits. Marriage is a religious ceremony that should actually be ignored by Government. If a couple wants to get married in a ritual of their choice for their own piece of mind, conscious, or morality...whatever....then that's fine.(So if you don't like the idea of gay marriage....then don't have one) The Government should only recognize legal agreements for unions....which should be a completely separate deal.....and not decided by states but the same everywhere the Federal Government has jurisdiction.

[Runcible Spoon]

14. Good. Keep the pressure on.

Make Obama take an active STAND on this would be helpful too.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Good! Hope this makes its way on up

Although I'd be happier if when it did, we were absent one or two of the most egregiously bigoted Justices.