Martha Coakley, who was defeated by Scott Brown for the Senate seat once held by the Prince of Chappaquiddick, is state attorney general and brought the suit on behalf of the gay couple.
The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.
First of all, marriage, contrary to the feel good notion of liberals, is not about getting benefits. Marriage is meant as a sacred union in which a man and woman join together to produce future generations. The benefits, etc, are meant as enticements for people to get married, so as to increase the population.
Second, if usurping Federal Law by the states is being used as an argument, as it is in the Arizona lawsuit, then why isn't Massachusetts sued for defying Federal law, meaning the DOMA?
Because this Regime is about the fundamental change of this society from how our Founders intended to something radically different, and meant to curry favor with certain "identity groups."
The whole issue of gay marriage isn't about equality, or "well, two people love each other, why not marry?". It is about the destruction of the building block of any society--the family. Once you destroy the family, you topple society. Once marriage is no longer between (as it was intended) a man and a woman...then there is no stopping how you can define marriage in the future. Will bigomy be considered a "right" one day, and marriage redefined to include that?
That is why there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment protecting the institution of marriage.