Massachusetts, the first state to [force homosexual "marriage"
on the people], has filed a lawsuit in federal court [opposing against Americans] the federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) as an "overreaching and discriminatory federal law". DOMA states that federal law defines marriage
as between a man and a woman, and therefore Massachusetts' "married" homosexual couples are not granted spousal
benefits in matters including federal income tax credits, healthcare coverage, employment benefits, and retirement benefits.
DOMA also says that states cannot be required to recognize homosexual "marriages" contracted in other states
where such "marriage" is legal.
"Congress's decision to enact a federal definition of marriage rejected
the long-standing practice of deferring to each state's definition of marriage and contravened the constitutional designation
of exclusive authority to the states," states the lawsuit.
Coakley also wrote that Congress, in enacting DOMA,
"undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between homosexual couples, and codified an animus towards gay
and lesbian people."
In 1996 DOMA was passed overwhelmingly in the House (342-67) and Senate (85-14) and
was promptly signed into law by Bill Clinton.
Charles Miller, a US Justice Department spokesman, responded by saying
the lawsuit would be reviewed, and reaffirmed Barack Obama's intention to repeal DOMA.
Massachusetts' lawsuit comes
on the heels of a federal lawsuit filed July 1 in New Orleans by a homosexual couple challenging Louisiana's constitutional
definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The men claimed the traditional marriage definition violated their
rights under the U.S. Constitution and international law.
In May, two homosexual couples in California also challenged
that state's constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage" in federal court.
Family Research Council president
Tony Perkins criticized the lawsuit, noting that DOMA was enacted primarily to protect states' rights to define marriage "as
they see fit so that no state can force marriage redefinition on another state."
"Now, the Massachusetts
Attorney General is expanding the fight against traditional marriage by demanding that federal taxpayers from all 50 states
subsidize same-sex 'marriage' benefits in Massachusetts," said Perkins.
He continued: "Recognizing the ongoing
threat to marriage, voters in the last election continued to define marriage in their state constitutions as the union of
one man and one woman. We advise the U.S. Justice Department to fulfill its constitutional duties and continue itsf defense
of DOMA against such frivolous lawsuits.
"We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and
preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions."
True marriage supporters in
Maine today won a hard-fought battle for that right to decide: Stand for Maine Marriage announced that it had gathered the
55,000 signatures needed to put the state's new same-sex "marriage" law on the ballot in November, giving voters
a chance to strike it down. As of Wednesday, the signatures have yet to be validated by the Secretary of State's office.
