« | »

Taxpayers Fund ‘Gay Marriage’ Fight

From the Boston Globe:

Mass. is 1st to fight US marriage law

By Nandini Jayakrishna and Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Correspondent | Globe Staff  |  July 9, 2009

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, yesterday became the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, contending that Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states.

The suit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley says the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violates the US Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to define the marital status of residents. The suit also says the law forces the state to discriminate against same-sex married couples – on certain health benefits and burial rights – or risk losing federal funding.

“Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people,’’ said the complaint filed in US District Court in Boston.

More than 16,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal in the state in 2004, the suit said, “and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state.’’

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which defends the government in litigation, issued a two-sentence statement yesterday saying President Obama “supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. We will review this case.’’ …

Massachusetts risks losing millions in dollars for MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program for the poor, and for veterans’ cemeteries overseen by the state Department of Veterans Services, unless it obeys the Defense of Marriage Act. The federal government has told the state that it cannot provide federal funding for MassHealth benefits given to same-sex spouses. It also informed the state it will lose Veterans Affairs funding if it buries the same-sex spouse of a veteran in a cemetery, as the state does for heterosexual spouses of veterans

Isn’t it comforting to see Massachusetts taxpayer money being used to fight for something that most of them diametrically oppose?

President Obama “supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act…”

That may very well be, since it is the opposite of what Mr. Obama said during the campaign.

(Thanks to Matthew for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 9th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Taxpayers Fund ‘Gay Marriage’ Fight”

  1. proreason says:

    “The federal government has told the state that it cannot provide federal funding for MassHealth benefits given to same-sex spouses. It also informed the state it will lose Veterans Affairs funding if it buries the same-sex spouse of a veteran in a cemetery, as the state does for heterosexual spouses of veterans… ”

    If that’s the law, how did the Hildabeast give benefits to queers in the State Department?

  2. Liberals Demise says:

    Less than 1% of the population and Mass. is bending over to appease these goat ropers. Say…… Congress person Fwank is from there, right? The picture is now complete. God I’m glad I am not from the North or the Left coast!!

  3. bronzeprofessor says:

    “Massachusetts risks losing millions in dollars for MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program for the poor, and for veterans’ cemeteries overseen by the state Department of Veterans Services, unless it obeys the Defense of Marriage Act. The federal government has told the state that it cannot provide federal funding for MassHealth benefits given to same-sex spouses. It also informed the state it will lose Veterans Affairs funding if it buries the same-sex spouse of a veteran in a cemetery, as the state does for heterosexual spouses of veterans…”

    I hate the way they always trot out military stuff to make their point. How many gay people actually want to serve in the military? How many of the 10,500 people kicked out under DADT were actually people trying to escape the military by saying “I’m gay please discharge me, I don’t want to get up at 4 am anymore!”? How much money are they REALLY going to lose based on a handful of gay dead veterans who have been married to people of the same sex and need VA money to be buried?

    This is so manipulative. I don’t care if they repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell either way, but it bugs me how they always parade cases of gay military people to make a point, when the vast majority of gay people who are screaming about this stuff would NEVER sign up for the armed forces.

    • proreason says:

      “How many gay people actually want to serve in the military?”

      Glad you said it professor.

      The percentage is probably the same as gays who aspire to be rodeo cowboys (the real kind, not the costume ones ; D )

      Along the same lines, I’ll bet that the percentage of gays who want to “get married” is about the same as gays who want to go on TV to discuss their sexuality. In other words, 5% or less.

      And for such tiny slivers of interested people, they try to tear the country apart.

  4. U NO HOO says:

    “Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to states”

    Yeah, marriage, education, labor law, minimum wage, energy, Interstate 99…

  5. bousquem says:

    I have to say in defense of all the people in Mass that not all of us are crazy nuts like the ones filing the lawsuits. Mostly it is the eastern end of the state that seems to believe in this waste of taxes, of course that said those same idiots in eastern end spend all the money they want then expect the feds and western end of the state to bail them out. One shouldn’t also forget that because Becon Hill couldn’t get off there fat heads and pass the law allowing police to stop you for not wearing seat belts, we lost federal highway funding. The whole reason some were opposed was because it was violating civil rights and intruding too much in others lives, but these are the same idiot lawmakers who had no problem funding MassHealth (medicaid) and other nanny-state programs far worse than making sure people wear seatbelts. I wasn’t too surprised when the AG decided she needed to start suing to get the wacky eastern mass liberal point of view broadcast and enforced across the entire country. Also let’s not forget it was the idiots in Boston who elected Barney Frank over and over.

  6. Reality Bytes says:

    This whole gay thing I think is highly overated. Too high an expectation if you ask me.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »