UPDATE: Department of Justice Argues No Fundamental Right Exists for Federal Gay Marriage Benefits

UPDATE: Brief added at bottom of post. H/T to Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry.

Earlier on Unite the Fight I reported that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley sued the federal government for discriminating against legally wed, same-sex couples because it did not extend federal marriage benefits upon them.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), under the Obama Administration, has responded with a filing in court claiming the federal government cannot be forced to extend such benefits and cites the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as its reason.

The AP reports:

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law "does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages," according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

"There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits," according to the 36-page filing.

DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler went on to tell the AP that any state "can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits."

"Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses," she said.

Like I and many others have said before, precedent has shown that an administration can choose not to defend a law that it believes to be unconstitutional (Reagan, Bush, Clinton). And since Obama does believe it is unconstitutional, I do not understand why he and his DOJ can say in one breath, "We don't like this law but we're going to defend it."

Let's top this off with quoting America Blog: "...this White House has already refused to enforce laws it didn't like - on immigration and medical marijuana - so don't lecture us about how you had to side with the religious right because of your respect for the rule of law. We simply weren't important enough."

Obama has stepped it up more lately, such as passing hate crimes legislation. I'm grateful. But this is such an affront to what the Supreme Court has already said is a fundamental right.

If he truly believes it's discriminatory, then isn't it hypocritical to defend it?
Brief Defending DOMA in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services

Rachel Maddow: "Gay Marriage Is a 'Defense of Marriage Act.'"

Yesterday on her show, Rachel Maddow points out that after five years of marriage equality, Massachusetts' divorce rate has dropped to pre-1940 levels, retaining the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

BREAKING NEWS: Massachusetts Attorney General Sues U.S. Government Over Same-Sex Marriage Recognition

The Boston Herald reports that Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a lawsuit this morning against the U.S. government to force it to extend a wide range of benefits to some 16,000 gay and lesbian couples legally married in Massachusetts.

The lawsuit challenges DOMA which Coakley says prevents gay and lesbian couples here from receiving tax, retirement, insurance, Social Security and other benefits.

The attorney general says in court papers that her action would not affect other states’ laws regarding marriage.

The AG's lawsuit claims the federal DOMA interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit and that the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law."

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the section of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman. (Read a further breakdown of the case at Law Dork.)

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the lawsuit states.

In a press release back in March, Coakley expressed her support for the lawsuit filed by GLAD challenging DOMA.

“We strongly support the efforts of GLAD and its clients to pursue equal rights for all married couples in Massachusetts. Since the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in Goodridge in 2003, Massachusetts has taken many affirmative steps to ensure and solidify marriage equality in the Commonwealth. Despite all of these efforts, married individuals in same-sex relationships do not enjoy equal rights in the Commonwealth. DOMA is a law that codifies discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Because of this law, individuals in same-sex marriages often pay more in federal income taxes, are not eligible for surviving spouse benefits from the Social Security Administration and, if they are employed by the federal government, cannot obtain healthcare coverage for their spouses.

Today’s lawsuit describes compelling stories of individuals in committed, loving, and lasting relationships, who have been deprived of rights and protections that they rightfully deserve. They are simply seeking the legal protections given to all other married persons. Massachusetts sees no reason to view these couples in any other way than as married couples, and we hope that this lawsuit results in a similar outlook at the federal level.”

GLAD's lawsuit, which is separate from the AG's, argues it discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive.

The third lawsuit challenging DOMA is the Smelt case which resulted in the infamous DOJ brief comparing same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia.

Law Demands Obama Must Effecitvely Take Stand on DOMA Within Five Weeks

Recently, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of same-sex married couples from Massachusetts employed by the federal government, being denied benefits.

DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing such marriages, but the government is not supposed to discriminate.

President Barack Obama promised during his campaign to seek repeal of DOMA, but ever since ascending to office, he's been practically mute on all LGBT rights issues.

Well now, he has to speak. The Department of Justice, which typically defends laws passed by Congress, has only until June 22 to respond.

A coalition of gay-rights groups have organized the campaign, Operation Doma Flip Flop, which urges supporters to send flip flop-shaped post cards to the White House urging Obama not to flip flop on his stance of DOMA and instruct the Department of Justice not to defend the law in court.

"Presidents have the option of refusing to defend a law they view as unconstitutional on its face, of which there is no clearer example than DOMA," the campaign website states. "President Obama himself has called the law 'abhorrent; and he’s a constitutional law professor. Given these premises, we feel that President Obama should refuse to defend DOMA and should instead instruct his Department of Justice to join GLAD in this historic lawsuit."

Go to Operation Doma Flip Flop or join them on Facebook to get involved!

Also, a petition has begun on Change.org that will go to President Obama and Congress urging them to repeal DOMA. GO SIGN IT.

Study Finds Five Years of Marriage Equality Works For Massachusetts

Recently, Unite the Fight posted on how marriage equality is becoming less of a threat, with support for it growing, thus making opponents irrelevant.

On the fifth anniversary of Massachusetts allowing same-sex marriage, a survey report was released showing how support for marriage equality has increased in the state now that the residents have experienced and witnessed the normalcy of it.

Massachusetts Marriage Equality Works Survey Report

Publish at Scribd or explore others: poll massachusetts

With 600 voters in Massachusetts surveyed from April 5-8 of 2009, Lake Research Partners found:

• Society is stronger because more couples are taking responsibility and making long-term commitments.
• It’s better for society overall that more people are getting married.
• Marriage equality promotes the common good by encouraging more people to build families and raise children.
• Children raised by gay and lesbian couples are more secure.
• Voters believe marriage equality helps Massachusetts live up to its values.
• Marriage equality should be protected.
• Massachusetts couples should have access to federal marriage benefits.
  

These are the kind of findings that scare the whacked out marriage equality opponents because they reveal the falsehoods in their arguments against allowing the LGBT population the right to wed.

I don't see a rise in interspecies marriage in Massachusetts. Do you?

Marriage Equality Becomes Less of a Threat and Makes Opponents Irrelevant

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin says he's changed his views on gay marriage and would oppose any effort to overturn an Iowa Supreme Court decision last month that legalized same-sex unions. He even told "Iowa Press" Friday he would vote no on a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.

This is just another blow to marriage equality opponents as their deepest fears of becoming irrelevant takes another step towards reality.

Take another instance. Massachusetts. Washington Post reporter David Crary wrote a piece Saturday titled "5 years on, gay marriage debate fades in Mass.":

One of the striking developments, since 2004, is the fading away of opposition to gay marriage among elected officials in Massachusetts.

When the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, there seemed to be sufficient support in the Legislature for a ballot measure that would overturn the decision. But efforts to unseat pro-gay-marriage legislators floundered; a gay-marriage supporter, Deval Patrick, was elected governor; and a climactic push for a referendum was rejected by lawmakers in 2007 by a 151-45 vote.

Last year, lawmakers went further, repealing a 1913 law that blocked most out-of-state gays from marrying in Massachusetts. The vote in the House was 119-36.

But it's not just in the legislature that the issue of marriage equality has faded from "red hot" issue into normal and almost mundane.

In 2004, Mass. Sen. Marian Walsh, whose district is heavily Catholic and socially conservative, faced intense pressure from constituents wanting to know whether she would support efforts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling. But after doing her homework and studying the law, she concluded the court was right - it came down to civil rights. She faced a "firestorm of anger" in response.
More...

But the amazing thing - she won her seat in 2004 and again in 2006.

Michael-in-Norfolk summed it up well:

One of the reasons why the extreme Christianists are so strident as marriage equality is spreading - other than, of course, the fact that it's a cash cow for the fundies' bogus "ministries" - is that they realize that once gay marriage comes to a state and becomes more prevalent, the general public will see that the Christianist cries of "saving marriage" were disingenuous at best if not patently dishonest. Massachusetts is a case in point where the debate over gay marriage has died away and such marriages have become common place - all with no diminution of heterosexual marriage. Indeed, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate of any state, thus further demonstrating the lack of merit of arguments peddled by those like Maggie Gallagher who is herself on the anti-gay marriage financial gravy train.

What Massachusetts offers is, in scientific terms, lab results. Throw in X (heterosexual marriage), add Y (same-sex marriage), throw in a catalyst that creates equality (Supreme Court ruling), and you get . . . THE END OF THE WORLD?!

No. You get more of what you had before. Loving relationships. Loving families. And as result, the staunchest opponents to marriage equality in Massachusetts begin to accept that the horrible apocalyptic "prophecies" from the church will in fact not come true.

Yet these Christianists don't give up. They say the demise of our society won't happen overnight. ". . . we believe it would be a generational downfall, not an overnight downfall," says Kris Mineau, a former Air Force pilot and pastor who is president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Here's the weakness in that argument. Do they really think that LGBT families didn't exist BEFORE marriage equality? We've existed for generations! And yet, somehow, miraculously, generation after generation, our society didn't devolve into an anarchic pit of hell.

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin is a great example of how society is turning, recognizing that the world hasn't ended since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, and even better, LGBT families have existed for generations and have contributed to society. So why not spread marriage equality?

This turning in thinking is the marriage equality opponent's greatest fear. Why? Because it makes them irrelevant. And once you're irrelevant, you're over.

VIDEO: Marriage Equality & Religion - The Massachusetts Experience

Empire State Pride Agenda is gearing up for the brewing battle in New York state over marriage equality. It is critical in such a campaign to frame the debate first and to steer the conversation.

They are prepared for the arguments by the religious right-wing, and in order to silence the religious debate before it even sets in, they have released the following:

One of the most dominant myths used by forces opposed to marriage equality is that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow negatively affect religious institutions or apply restrictions to their freedom to worship as they choose.

Although this myth is patently false, that has not stopped some opponents from using the claim to lead people to believe their religious freedom is in danger. Fortunately, in New York, we do not need to speculate on how religious institutions, spiritual life and the freedom to worship will be affected if the state passes a law allowing same-sex couples to marry. New York needs only to look to our neighbor to the east, Massachusetts — where marriages for same-sex couples have been legal since 2004 — to see that the worries about such a law negatively impacting people of faith have been unfounded.

Vermont Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill 26-4

The first state in the union to issue civil unions to same-sex couples is now a step closer to issuing same-sex marriage licenses, possibly joining Connecticut and Massachusetts as the only states legalizing same-sex marriage.

Impassioned pleas came from supportive senators, including Sen. John Campbell, who went to last week's public hearing, where opposition claimed that straight marriage was like a cruise ship full of heterosexual couples, and that homosexuals followed the vessel in their tiny dinghies but wanted to get on the straight marriage ship, not carrying whether or not they sank it. The underlining theme of this metaphor, said a senator, was the appalling inequality, and what was most offensive was that the opposition felt this was acceptable, and on top of that, proclaimed it.

An alternate bill was presented to the floor stating that the issue should go to the people in a referendum instead of being decided by the legislature, urged by the belief that the legislature was moving too quickly on the issue. Opposing views claimed that it could be very expensive and referred to the millions and millions spent in California on Proposition 8, and that more pressing issues, such as the economy, needed the state's full resources instead of it being distracted by the marriage debate. This was countered that if same-sex marriage was approved by the people of Vermont, then the institution would have more sound standing and acceptance than if only approved by the legislature. This bill was voted down.

The approved bill must move the House for a floor vote, and though it's expected to be a tight race, the house speaker believes it will be approved. It also must clear the obstacle of Republican Gov. James Douglas' desk where a veto threat is real. It is not clear whether or not a enough votes exist in the state legislature to overturn a veto.

If the bill does in fact clear all obstacles, same-sex marriage will begin in the state of Vermont, September 1, 2009.

EVENT: Screening of "Save Marriage"

"Saving Marriage" chronicles the true story of the Massachusetts fight to save marriage equality. The film will inspire Californians who are in their own fight to win back marriage rights after the passage of Prop 8.

Massachusetts went down this road fighting for marriage equality four years before California did and the two fights are strikingly similar. Activists in Massachusetts tried to fight off a constitutional amendment that would take gay marriage away, but they narrowly lost. Then, the community spent the next year and a half changing peoples' minds about same sex marriage before the issue came up for a vote the second time.

"Exuberantly big-hearted... Engrossing... Rambunctious and hopeful."
- Jeannette Catsoulis, New York Times

"Acutely suspenseful ... A virtual how-to manual for changing hearts
and minds."
- Kevin Thomas, Los Angeles Times

"Even for those who think they know the full story...this documentary
will be a revelation."
- Jonathan Curiel, San Francisco Chronicle

Co-directors Mike Roth and John Henning will do Q & A following the screening.

WHEN: Friday, March 13, 2009 @ 8pm

WHERE: Regent Showcase Theater
614 N La Brea Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Map

Suggested donation at door = $5. All proceeds go to Marriage Equality USA.

Sign up for the event on Facebook.

"Saving Marriage" official website.

Right Wing Scams Massachusetts Residents to Sign Anti-Gay Marriage Petition