--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail <carc...@...> wrote: > > What confuses me, which is pretty easy to, there is no federal law requiring > a > marriage license or marriage claim. So I do not understand why federal has > anything to do with marriage. > >
Maybe this video report will help you understand it: -- Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who filed a lawsuit challenging the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, talks with Chris Hayes about the implications of the federal court ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Watch: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38158827#38158827 > > > > ________________________________ > From: do.rflex <do.rf...@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, 9 July, 2010 11:08:05 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional > > > > > Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional by U.S. JudgeJuly 9 > (Bloomberg) > -- The U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the institution as being > between a man and a woman, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. > > U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston yesterday decided that > Congress > exceeded its authority in legislating the issue and that the measure > infringed > states' rights to regulate marriage. > "In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a > married couple entitled to federal marriage- based benefits from one not so > entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference > might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue," Tauro said in > one > of two rulings against the U.S. he issued yesterday. > The marriage-defining act, popularly known as DOMA, was signed into law by > President Bill Clinton in 1996. As of 2003, it affected 1,138 federal > programs > in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, the judge > said, citing a 2004 report by the federal government. > Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said by e-mail that > officials are reviewing the decision. > Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to permit same- sex marriages in > May > 2004, after its highest court ruled that gays and lesbians had a > constitutional > right to wed. The state sued the U.S. over the act last year. > `Second-Class Marriages' > It is unconstitutional "for the federal government to decide who is married > and > to create a system of first- and second-class marriages," state Attorney > General Martha Coakley said in a statement. > Coakley, a Democrat who in February lost to Republican Scott Brown in a race > to > fill the U.S. Senate seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy, said the state was > "pleased" by yesterday's decisions. > Tauro issued a parallel ruling in a separate case filed by seven same-sex > couples and three survivors of same-sex partners, all of whom were married > in > Massachusetts. The Justice Department had asked the court to dismiss both > cases, arguing that the act was "consistent with prevailing equal protection > case law." > "DOMA reflects what Congress believed was an appropriate response to this > ongoing debate in the states," preserving for them the ability to retain the > one-man, one-woman definition or alter it, as in states that recognize same > sex > unions, the government said in a filing with Tauro last year. > Iowa, Connecticut > Courts in Iowa and Connecticut also have ruled to permit same-sex marriage. > Vermont's legislature legalized the weddings last year, overriding a > gubernatorial veto, while voters in Maine overturned a legislative fiat in > November. > California voters chose to ban the practice, a measure that has since been > challenged in an as-yet-undecided federal court trial in San Francisco. > Tauro said he agreed with Massachusetts that the law forced the commonwealth > "to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to > receive and retain federal funds." > The state's case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States > Department > of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156, and the couples' case is Gill v. > Office of Personnel Management, 09- cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District > of > Massachusetts (Boston). > http://www.business week.com/ news/2010- 07-09/defense- of-marriage- > act-ruled- > unconstitutional -by-u-s-judge. html >
