Mass Gays Want Federal Benefits

Married gay couples in Massachusetts are seeking the federal benefits that regular married couples enjoy.

Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she’s not allowed to check the “married filing jointly” box.

That’s because Ritchie and her spouse, Kathleen Bush, are a gay couple, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes them ineligible to file joint tax returns.

Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance. Plaintiffs also include Dean Hara, the widower of former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of the House of Representatives.

In Ritchie’s case, she and her spouse say they have paid nearly $15,000 more in taxes than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.

“It saddens us because we love our country,” Ritchie said. “We are taxpayers. We live just like anyone else in our community. We do everything just like every other family, like every other married couple, and we are treated like less than that.”

Well, to be fair, you don’t do everything just like every other family, or every other married couple.

The lawsuit was being filed Tuesday in federal court in Boston by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the anti-discrimination group that brought a successful legal challenge leading to Massachusetts becoming the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage in 2004.
[...]
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The new lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples.
[...]
All the plaintiffs are from Massachusetts and have marriages that are recognized by the state. They include a U.S. Postal Service employee who wasn’t allowed to add her spouse to her health insurance plan; a Social Security Administration retiree who was denied health insurance for his spouse; three widowers who were denied death benefits for funeral expenses; and a man who has been denied a passport bearing his married name.

In response to the lawsuit, Kris Mineau, President of the Massachusetts Family Institute released the following statement:

DOMA passed the Congress by overwhelming, bi-partisan majorities—342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate—and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

DOMA is not a conservative or liberal law, it is an American law signed to protect children and families that has been upheld by previous federal court rulings.

Americans overwhelmingly believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Forty-five states have laws supporting traditional marriage and thirty out of thirty states have affirmed marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions.

Same-sex marriage activists simply cannot win a public vote so they force their will upon the citizenry through select, activist judges.

The court should reject this thinly-veiled attempt to impose same-sex marriage on American citizens who have overwhelmingly voted otherwise.

Rosie’s Place Nixes Sandra Bernhard For Palin Remark

Rosie’s Place, a Boston shelter, was going to have comedian Sandra Bernhard headlining their annual benefit. But no longer. Bernhard’s recent comment the Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin would be gang raped in New York has led benefit organizers to can her appearance.

Bernhard’s made the remarks last month during her one-woman show in Washington before Palin visited New York to campaign. Bernhard said Palin would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” during a diatribe in which she also criticized Palin for opposing abortion rights.

Many guests at Rosie’s Place, a Boston shelter, have been victims of violence, public relations director Leemarie Mosca said.

“In light of our mission, we don’t think violence against women is a laughing matter,” she said.

Mosca said the shelter expected to book a replacement before the Oct. 16 luncheon “Funny Women … Serious Business.”

“Right now, our main focus is our event and making sure the event is a success,” Mosca said. “And for us, that means not including Sandra Bernhard at this time.”

A representative for Bernhard had no immediate comment on the cancellation.

In a statement on her Web site, Bernhard said the gang-rape comment was part of a larger piece from her show about “racism, freedom, women’s rights, and the extreme views of Gov. Sarah Palin _ a woman who doesn’t believe that other women should have the right to choose.”

“I certainly wish Gov. Palin no harm _ I’d just like her to explain to me how she can hold such outrageous views … and then go back to Alaska,” she said.

It’s all relative Ms. Bernhard… there is a large population of people who find your views on abortion just as outrageous as you find people’s pro-life views. Seriously, if that’s all you have against Sarah Palin, perhaps you need some substantive material.

Rep. Frank Says Palin’s Family Is “Fair Game”

Rep. Barney Frank says Sarah Palin’s family is “fair game.” He is among the first to make this suggestion, and is breaking ranks with the de facto party leader and Democratic nominee for president Barack Obama.

“They’re the ones that made an issue of her family,” Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Republicans stressed Palin’s conservative family values in announcing her selection as John McCain’s running mate on Friday. Frank says the recent disclosure about her daughter blunts conservative claims that liberalism harms family life.

“Apparently she’s a great favorite with the conservative social movement,” Frank said. “They have said that it’s liberalism and liberals who have undermined families — same-sex marriage has been a problem, they don’t want gay people to adopt … This helps undercut those arguments.”

Not so, Congressman. Growing up with conservative values in the home does not 100% shield you from liberalism, and vice versa. You can’t walk down the street, go on the internet, or turn on the television to see how liberalism has undermined family values. Parents can only do so much to impart their values on to their children. Let’s face it, it is impossible for parents to safeguard children from values that do not align with their own, short of keeping them locked up in a dungeon somewhere with no outside contact.

Revelations about Palin’s 17-year-old daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy and other family troubles reflect the stresses and strains of modern everyday life more than anything else, said Frank.

“Well, hers is a family in great turmoil,” added Frank. “She fired the state police commissioner because he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband. She has a daughter who became pregnant. That’s not her fault.”

I don’t understand why her family is “in great turmoil” for simply having to deal with the stresses and strains of modern everyday life. Many families deal with these issues, and some many times worse.  But you are correct, Congressman. It’s not her fault. You can fairly go after the actions of Sarah Palin, but when it comes to her children, or any politicians children, listen to your messiah, “children are especially off limits.” Let’s keep it that way, for the children of a politicians regardless of what party they are. If Palin’s children are fair game, then all politicians’ children are fair game, and I don’t think we want to go down that road, Congressman.

(Will Congressman Frank say that Senator Biden’s son and brother are also fair game?)

Coakley OKs Ballot Question To Reinstate 1913 Marriage Law

While the news shouldn’t be shocking, it still is. Attorney General Martha Coakley has approved a ballot question to reinstant the 1913 Marriage Law that was recently repealed by the Legislature.

In her ruling, Coakley said the question’s supporters, MassResistance, had met the necessary technical requirement for filing a ballot question. The group must now gather 33,000 signatures by the end of October to appear on the November 2010 ballot.

Coakley differentiated between her official duties and any personal feeling she may have on the issue.

“Our decision that this referendum meets the constitutional requirements as to subject matter does not mean that it has our support, but simply that the constitutional requirements are met for the proponents of the referendum to obtain further signatures,” Coakley said in a statement.

In Massachusetts, differentiating between official duties and personal feelings is a rarity. The will of the people has been brushed aside by the Legislature time and time again, and yet, somehow, these buffoons on Beacon Hill keep getting reelected.

When this question comes to a vote, and the 1913 Marriage Law is reinstated, how long do you think it will be before the legislature ignores the will of the people?

Senate Turns Massachusetts Into Gay Las Vegas

Earlier today the State Senate voted to allow out-of-state gay couples to get married in Massachusetts… opening the door for Massachusetts to become the Gay Las Vegas.

The Massachusetts Family Institute, issued a press release earlier today, accusing the Senate of redefining marriage in other states:

With its vote today to dismantle a 1913 law prohibiting out-of-state couples from marrying Massachusetts if they are ineligible for marriage in their home state, the Massachusetts Senate is inviting court challenges to the marriage laws of other states.

 “The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage but that’s exactly what they voted today to do,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute.

Dubbed falsely by same-sex marriage activists as a law with an anti-race bias, the State Supreme Judicial Court in 2006 ruled that the law was not racially motivated.

“Legislators were pressured unscrupulously by same-sex marriage activists to dismantle this law or be branded racists,” Mr. Mineau said—adding that the Human Rights Campaign hired lobbyists to work over Massachusetts legislators on this issue.

Move over San Francisco.