Coakley: DOMA Interferes With Mass. Marriage

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Feb 20, 2010 3:14 AM GMT
    Coakley: DOMA Interferes With Mass. Marriage


    [QUOTE]

    Coakley is asking the federal government to bypass a trial and give a summary judgment, which would rule the law unconstitutional without holding a full trial.

    [/QUOTE]





    [QUOTE]



    “Massachusetts cannot receive or retain federal funds if it gives same-sex and different-sex spouses equal treatment, namely by authorizing the burial of a same-sex spouse in a federally-funded veterans’ cemetery and by recognizing the marriages of same-sex spouses in assessing eligibility for Medicaid health benefits,” Coakley said.

    Federal officials have until April 30 to respond.


    [/QUOTE]



    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/19/Coakley_DOMA_interferes_with_Mass_marriage/



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2010 5:20 AM GMT
    I'll hold my breath on this one until something positive comes from it.

    Somehow I don't see this working.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2010 3:15 PM GMT
    Martha Coakley is a less than stellar political candidate as we saw in her poorly run Senate campaign against Scott Brown. But she is a first class legal technician. During the Senate campaign she got to share ideas with a lot of influential people in DC. She now knows everything she knows about DOMA's soft underbelly (i.e. that it in unconstitutional). She's a shrewd operator and would not have taken on this case if she didn't think it was all but a slam dunk. She can't afford a high profile loss right now and she knows that a win will energize and unite her base among Massachusetts Democrats and left-leaning Independents. Odds are she will win this one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2010 3:44 PM GMT
    flieslikeabeagle said... Odds are she will win this one.

    She and Massachusetts SHOULD win this one, based on the US Constitution. But all through its history, the Constitution has been a very pliable document, subject to some very loose interpretations by the US Supreme Court. One has only to look at Dred Scott, or the decision during WWII upholding internment of US citizens of Japanese heritage.

    The risk is that by ruling against the plaintiff here, a pro-DOMA precedent is set. And if there's one thing the Supreme Court loves, it's precedent, so we may have to live with a disappointment for a long time.

    And let's look at the Justices. The majority of them are Republican appointees and conservatives. They will twist logic every way possible to defeat anything that is pro-gay in its outcome. Humans are humans, and Supreme Court Justices are not gods.

    A number of them, especially Thomas and Scalia, will start from the unalterable Republican premise that gays are evil and deserve no rights at all. From there they will craft legal arguments to achieve that end. To echo Alice in Wonderland: "Verdict first, trial second!" This will hinge on the so-called swing votes of 1 or 2 Justices, and I expect whatever decision is rendered will be a 5-4 vote.