Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
MASS. ATTORNEY GENERAL CHALLENGES DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has a habit of being ahead of the curve. She's successfully investigated predatory mortgage lenders, reaping large settlements from banks like Goldman Sachs to help borrowers in danger of foreclosure. Now the National Law Journal reports that her office is making waves again:
Coakley filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a federal law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, which denies same-sex couples married in Massachusetts access to certain federal benefits.Coakley filed the July 8 lawsuit, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Health and Human Services agency, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and those agencies' secretaries.
The lawsuit claims that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the U.S. Constitution because it interferes with Massachusetts' "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage."
The suit also claims that DOMA violates the Constitution's spending clause, which restricts Congress' power to impose conditions on states getting federal funding. According to a Coakley office statement, "Congress does not have a valid reason for requiring Massachusetts to treat married same-sex couples differently from all other married couples."
Exciting stuff. In the most recent challenge to DOMA, the Obama administration earned the justified anger of the LGBT community and its allies when the Department of Justice filed a brief in defense of the law, which the president promised to repeal during his campaign last year. Though Obama himself and other administration officials have sought rapprochement with the LGTB community, gestures aren't going to be enough when a case like this presents an opportunity to overturn the law -- watch to see how the administration decides to deal with this case and how strong a stance DOJ lawyers take defending the anti-gay marriage statute.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (4)
This is exciting news.
This morning when I saw you on Washington Journal say that most of the stimulous money had gone to counties supported by Obama, I wished it had been pointed out that some of the Republican areas were reluctant even to accept it.
Then I looked up more about that announcement in the news and found the misimpression was even worse. Although the headline said what you did, the details were important to the story.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm#Close
Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08
Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says.
and
The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.
Posted by: Ruth Walker | July 9, 2009 5:40 PM
Coakley has a bright future. I could see her in the Senate in a few years
Posted by: njbunk | July 9, 2009 8:46 PM
I can't stand DOMA and would like nothing better than to be able to marry my partner of ten years, but I think the anger is misplaced. There is a difference, a critical difference, between wanting to repeal a law and believing a law is unconstitutional. Personally I think DOMA is probably constitutional, and I certainly think it's possible for Obama to believe in good faith, based on his own legal judgment and that of DOJ professionals, that DOMA is a bad law but was within the power of Congress to pass. I certainly don't recall Obama ever saying he considered DOMA unconstitutional (in fact his promises to seek repeal sort of presuppose the law is valid). Sure, Obama could just demand that DOJ lawyers serve up a legal opinion that suits his political agenda, but haven't we had enough of that?
Posted by: Kevin | July 10, 2009 2:31 AM
Hmmmm. This might be a really good bandwagon for conservatives and libertarians to jump on. Any SCOTUS decision limiting Congress's power to spend or regulate state activities would have farreaching consequences that would be good for the right.
I think most right-wingers would gladly accept gay marriage in exchange for restricting Congress' power to regulate and spend. I'll take that deal in a heartbeat. Bring on the court case!
Posted by: Adam Herman | July 13, 2009 6:18 AM