The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s (“DOMA’s”) definition of marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”
Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, claims that the federal definition violates its authority under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution to define marriage as it sees fit.
Click here for the full complaint.
Attorney General Martha Coakley’s suit argues that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reserves all powers to the states except those expressly given to the federal government, and it points out that until DOMA’s passage in 1996 states had unchallenged authority to regulate marriage.
It claims DOMA violates the Constitution’s principles of federalism, and it also violates constitutional provisions that prevent the federal government from withholding money to states as a means of forcing them to violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.
The suit asks the court to find DOMA unconstitutional as applied to Massachusetts and to grant an injunction preventing the enforcement of DOMA against Massachusetts.
The suit alleges that not only does the law violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states all powers except those granted to the federal government. It also alleges that the law violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which limits the power of Congress to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds.
The suit states that DOMA, termed “overreaching and discriminatory,” interferes with the state’s “sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage.”
“We view all married persons equally,” Coakley said at a press conference today.
The judicial branch sees Congress’ ability to attach strings to funds as quite broad, and if the definition of marriage is linked to that enumerated power and is not seen as commandeering the state legislative or executive branches, it would likely not be seen by them as a violation Tenth Amendment.
I think it’s important for the federal government to stay out of this issue altogether. No matter what side of the coin you are on gay marriage, the last thing you want is for the feds to have the power to dictate to your state how you’ll address the issue.
Good to see the left recognizing the importance of the 10th amendment, AND understanding how federalism is supposed to work.
I’m no fan of gay marriage, and don’t support it in my state personally. But if the people of Mass want it, that’s their business!
I just hope those same people are just as supportive of the people in my state when we decide to refuse a national health care program!!
I agree, Jeffersonian. But, I don’t know enough about DOMA to really understand whether or not Coakley’s claims are correct. If the federal law is making requirements of the state in regards to marriage, then I would argue that there’s a solid case, even if the courts don’t see it that way. (and they usually just scoff at the 10th anyway)
But, if it’s just a federal issue and the state is trying to get the entire federal apparatus to change its position for the whole country, that’s a different story.
We’re working on trying to get the AG for an interview on our podcast. I think it would make an interesting discussion.
The people of Massachusetts want gay marriage? Give me a damn break! As bad off as they are, they know better than to overthrow the fundamental institution of society. No; the people of Massachusetts never approved ‘gay marriage,’ their Supreme Judicial Court thrust it upon them, as if to say that it is some kind of legislative body. But, hey, if the people of Mass. can live with that, then let them wallow in their own misery.
Terry – like Jeffersonian says above, I just hope that they hold to the same principle of federalism for issues like gun rights, health care, drug laws and the rest.
That’s the true test of real constitutional belief or simple political posturing. My instinct tells me it’s the latter, but we’ll see. Either way, I’m happy to see places like CNN and the Boston Globe even talking about the 10th and federalism.
At worst, this raises awareness of that principle.
You do make an important point about their judicial branch legislating, which I’m not in favor of at any level.
I am not an expert in the DOMA, but a few articles I’ve read seem to indicate that the DOMA does not prohibit states from allowing same sex marriage. What it does is disqualify same sex married couples from receiving federal benefits. I don’t see anywhere where states that allow same sex marriage get penalties or lose funding.
That makes for an interesting debate. Mass. is saying the DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates unlawfully by the manner in which it disqualifies (fails to qualify) same sex couples from certain federal benefits afforded to heteros.
One would think that if a state demands its right to define and qualify people for getting married, on the basis of its independent sovereignty, that the converse would be that the fed has its own sovereignty, too, and the feds should have the right to define who gets federal benefits. These ought to be two different governments – each with the right to full domain over its own rules.
As happens periodically in the law, the same thing can be defined differently for different purposes. For example, a fetus can be a person in terms of criminalizing the killing of it by a mugger. But it is not a person when it comes to a consensual abortion.
Using that example, it is easy to see why marriage can be defined one way to define the relationship between individuals as far as a state governmnent is concerned, but defined another way to determine which people are entitled to federal benefits as far as the federal government is concerned.
You know…. It’s all messed up. This whole sovereignty issue could possibly be weakened by the Mass. action – not strengthened. What the suit will highlight is the difficulty of having the various states creating their own laws and trying to have all of those various laws mesh with federal welfare policy.
If the feds were not in welfare, the situation would be simpler. But it is, and so, the issue is much more complex and replete with troublesome issues. At the end of the day, if the feds win the case, which is quite likely, it might be seen as a defeat for the 10th.
But frankly, I do not even see this as a 10th issue. Mass. already has the right to allow gay marriage. What Mass. is seeking, through its assertion of the 10th, is that the feds do not have a right to define how people are qualified/disqualified for purposes of receiving federal benefits. This is not about Mass. receiving federal dollars (the old “strings attached” issue). This is about Mass. citizens receiving benefits under federal welfare programs. What does that have to do with the 10th?
And it will be one of those defeats that could take the gas out of 10th supporters who aren’t strongly vested in gay rights. I urge those who track this issue to take caution and realize that this might not even be a 10th issue at all. So, don’t get too vested too early, and let’s just wait and see what happens.
As it stands, this is just a case about federal law as it relates to federal welfare programs.
This move by Mass illustrates again why the Tenth movement is not a strictly partisan thought process. Though typically thought of as a liberal group, supporters of Gay Marriage are ultimately demanding liberty, liberty protected under the Tenth Amendment.
If the feds were not in welfare, this issue wouldn’t be coming up. And they shouldn’t be!
I believe that gay marriage should be a right for everyone in every state. Hopefully, the make up of the Supreme Court will change
I have heard interesting arguments to the contrary.
Should state-sanctioned polygamy be a right?
How about state-sanctioned beastiality?
After all, love is love.
It is one thing to be allowed to freely engage in one’s choice of perversion – whatever that might be. I say, go for it.
It is another thing to suggest the state should be required to sanction the conduct.
I can’t say I “vigorously” oppose, but I can certainly see how voters ought to be able to say, “We aren’t spending our money and resources on that.”
I believe that gay marriage should be a right for everyone in every state. Hopefully, the make up of the Supreme Court will change.
Leila,
Be careful what you wish for, because in the end you may not like what you get. A state like my own would never go along with that, I can assure you, whether you believe homosexual “marriage” ought to be a right for everyone in every state or not.
The reason this is a 10th Amendment issue is that the feds don’t have a “marriage” contract or license that they issue… this is left to the states to regulate, as it should be… however, they then go on to say “but, but, but, we’re not going to recognize some marriages from some states because we don’t like how that state defines marriage”.
Either they should get out of the business of basing taxes and other benefits, such as social security, on marriage status, or they should follow the Constitution and acknowledge the validity of legal decrees of each of the states.
As a distant 3rd, I suppose they could define a “federal marriage” that they regulate that is used only for federal purposes… but that’s not a power delegated to them by the Constitution either.
I’d be happy to see the outcome of this suit going either way. But leaving this hypocritical stance in place is blatantly Unconstitutional.
As is some states refusing to recognize these marriages: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” (Article 4, Section 1) Marriages are all three, public acts, matters of public record, and judicial proceedings (even when delegated from judges to ministers to actually perform).
The full faith and credit clause is the main argument traditional marriage proponents use for the ratification of the FMA. In order for the federal constitution to work as intended you have to have a highly cohesive society, which we do not have. There are various reasons for that that I can’t really get into at this moment, but I can say this — the mass importation of foreigners and their foreign ideas of government has created a great amount of the incohesiveness that now exists in this nation. Which is one of the main reasons I see secession by some states as imminent.
I’ve been waiting for a state to use the 10th amendment against the federal government. As far as what Mass. is trying to do, I have mixed feelings. If it works for them though, it will set a precedent that may be useful for killing Obamacare if it passes.
Okay. Suppose Mass. wins. Great, we have to expand federal welfare to comply. Is that a victory?
Suppose Mass. loses. Gays still get to marry. They don’t qualify for an expansion of federal benefits, and no expansion is necessary. But regardless of a holding that refuses to grow the fed, 10th supporters still think they lost.
Look, if Texans don’t want gay marriage, and Texans are taxed to provide money to the federal government for welfare programs, you can pretty much rest-assured that a win for Mass. is a loss for Texas. In such event, Texans will have to pony-up for expanded federal costs of providing benefits for married gay couples, when Texas is, in fact, opposed to gay marriage.
As they say, bad facts make bad laws. I see a “no-win” here. There is no way any holding would say, “Well, now that we see this issue, we hold that the federal government should not even be in the welfare business.” So, don’t even dream of it.
Arguments about whether the federal government should or should not be in the welfare business are interesting, but far from pragmatic in the current climate and as far as the pending case is concerned.
So, get ready for a lose – either way you look at it.
This would be almost like Texans defining a marriage to include the possibility that a man could marry a cow, and then, expecting Oklahomans to send more money to the fed so that the widowed cow can receive survivor benefits.
Rephrased:
The DOMA is more pro-10th than the Mass. lawsuit is. The Mass. lawsuit is turning the 10th into hypocrisy.
Mass. wants to partially defeat the fed, so that now, it can use the fed to coerce the states into funding welfare to Mass. citizens.
As Boldin points out, correctly for the most part, a “right” should exist when it does not intrude on somebody else.
Mass. is trying to turn the 10th on its head. I would not take this lawsuit as “friendly” in any way toward the 10th movement. It is designed to coerce various states’ citizens to fund additional welfare to a new set of Mass. citizens.
Yes, Jeff, it’s a little bit complicated, but I think you’re all over this one.
This lawsuit provides information on a key split on interpretation of the Tenth Amendment between laissez-faire federalists and constitutionalist-republican federalists. For the sake of full disclosure, I should state from the outset that I’m in the second camp, and I hope I’m being completely fair in characterizing the first camp as those who believe that anything not explicitly, literally barred in the Constitution to state governments is constitutionally legit. I characterize my group’s stance of constitutionalist-republican federalism as taking seriously the implications of the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” resting as that guarantee does on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” That precludes any legitimate government from redefining marriage away from its foundation in biological procreation between one husband and one wife.
Frankly, I have no interest in intruding on what consenting adults not hurting each other do when they move behind the privacy of their bedroom door. But when they make a vociferously public demand that all others be aware of their private sexual behavior and treat that private behavior as their public identity, I disagree. That the Massachusetts AG is demanding that all U.S. citizens concur with a Massachusetts judicial fiat blessing homosexuality via government recognition of “same-sex marriage” (and by a 4-3 one-vote margin, at that) is abominable tyranny.
When any federal tax credit law, becomes itself, used as if it were a federal welfare program, all Constitutions are violated.
Maybe I’m just hoping to be admired by someone for my own forbearance, or maybe I just have an unhealthy addiction that looks into sophomoric judgments. But either way, this one has caught my attention.
Oh lucky me, it looks like there is still some time left to investigate this one. lol
This is a little difficult to discuss for some because of all the propaganda in favor of same-sex marriage, but does anyone think that if a state passed laws that legalized polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage among minors or lowered the age of marriage to nine the FedGov would be compelled to recognize such marriages?
That’s a Good question icr, which leads me to have another question.
Can this federal government be forced financially, to support one State’s claim of sovereignty, over another.
There is nothing more foolish then demanding, that a thief, should become more generous.
On The Official Website of the Attorney General of Massachusetts.
This Statement is made…
“Today, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts takes an important step toward ensuring equality and fairness for its citizens and maintaining our authority as a sovereign state,â€
The first thing I would like to know is, were the particular specifics, of this lawsuit personally addressed by the legislators of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and have the legislators of Massachusetts properly concurred, that the sovereignty of their State is being violated in these particular manners of which this lawsuit makes its claims.
These are just some of the questions, so far, that I my self am looking to have answered.
As long as they don’t try to make my state recognizing their “gay marriages” or impose it on us as well. I’m perfectly happy regarding “marriages” made in the State of Massachusetts as nothing more then a civil union.
But I got a sick feeling that their real aim here is not to protect the rights of Massachusetts, but rather impose Massachusetts values (or lack there of) on everyone else.
About half of what the feds do is illegal under the tenth amendment. Whether or not you approve of gay marriage, polygamy, bestiality, fecaphilia,
dirty sanchez, golden showers, cleveland steamers, rusty trombones, etc is not the issue. The reason the feds are able to abuse the tenth amendment in the first place is because of millions of stupid morons that come crying to them every time they don’t like what someone else is doing in the privacy of their own home. Those of us with enough logic and reason going on between our ears to understand that the feds use that as an excuse to take our rights away are in a futile struggle against a lot of very stupid people and the evil rat bastards who exploit them, end of story.