Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Atty Gen says one man one woman is unconstitutional - think it will make it to the SCOTUS?

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman interferes with her state's right to regulate the institution.

Coakley's office filed a lawsuit in July challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In papers filed late Thursday, Coakley asks a judge to deem the law unconstitutional without holding a trial on the lawsuit.

Coakley argues that regulating marital status has traditionally been left to the states. She also says the federal law treats married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently on Medicaid benefits and burial in veterans' cemeteries.

Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage and is the first to challenge the law.

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 1:42 PM on Feb. 19, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (18)
  • It could end up there but I do think that SCOTUS will throw it back to the states so each state can choose how they handle the issue. Since Marriage Certificates are given by each state not by the federal government theyd have a perfect out in throwing it back to the state in question.

    Answer by gemgem at 1:50 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • Yeah, but she's contesting it on the grounds that it discriminates in federal benefits. The states have nothing to do with deciding how to handle military funerals or approve medicaid.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:55 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • I hate to burst her bubble, but it doesn't matter WHO your partner is, or your status, if you are on medicaid, you get treated differently.


    Answer by 29again at 1:56 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • I think that people need to decide on whether the states have more rights or the federal government. People are getting upset that states are approving their own laws on mandatory health care saying they have no right to do that. But, here comes Massachusetts saying the federal government has no right to over rule states.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:11 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • DOMA is unconstitutional for a few reasons. Good for her for challenging it.


    Answer by SRiveroC at 2:29 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • I agree with SRivero!!!

    Answer by older at 3:01 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • Well...., IMHO, she is wrong!

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:16 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • I don't see how DOMA could be wrong Constitutionally. It simply defines the "marriage." It doesn't say civil unions between those of the same sex could not be allowed. It simply reserves "marriage" for one man and one woman.

    I long supported civil unions because this eases legal issues..all things being under one umbrella and I didn't oppose the "entitlements." I opposed having it pushed in my face with no regard to my faith. I opposed being bashed time and again for my belief. I finally said enough. I no longer even support civil unions because it is not about rights it is about legislated acceptance.

    I don't think the court will take up the issue because of the positions most states have taken.


    Answer by yourspecialkid at 5:33 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • Hope so.


    Answer by Anonymous at 5:35 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

  • What's up with the numbers on the bottom of the posts?

    Answer by lovinangels at 6:03 PM on Feb. 19, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.