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.

Massachusetts: The Gay Las Vegas?

Well, not yet. But the recent ruling by a New York court prevents gay New York couples from coming to Massachusetts to get married.

A New York court’s ruling that same-sex couples can’t legally marry in that state shuts the door on gay couples there who wish to come to Massachusetts to marry, but it may not affect those who already received marriage licenses here, according to an attorney for out-of-state gay couples.

Michele Granda of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders said gay marriage wasn’t expressly prohibited in New York when same-sex marriages began in Massachusetts in 2004, so her group considers at least 170 New York couples who received marriage licenses here before Thursday legally married.

New York’s highest court ruled Thursday that state law limits marriage to between a man and a woman. The ruling said lawmakers have a legitimate interest in protecting children by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Gay Marriage Debate Waits For SJC Ruling

The Boston Herald is reporting that next week’s Constitutional Convention debate on gay marraige has been put on hold to wait for the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling on the case between Attorney General Tom Reilly and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

While the fate of a proposed ballot initiative to ban gay marriage rests in the hands of the state’s highest court, lawmakers have put off next week’s planned Constitutional Convention debate on the issue until the court makes a ruling.

Yesterday the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments from lawyers for Attorney General Tom Reilly and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed suit after Reilly certified a signature ballot initiative launched by VoteOnMarriage.org to put the issue to voters in 2008.

Though the parties’ legal arguments focused primarily on whether petitioners have the right to change the constitution in this manner, Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall grilled Reilly’s assistant attorney general, Peter Sacks, on the right of petitioners to change laws protecting personal rights.

“If this court rules that slavery is inconsistent with the constitution (can) the people of Massachusetts through an initiative petition say that it is permissible to have slavery in Massachusetts?” asked Marshall.

“As troubling as the subject matter is,” Sacks replied, “it would be a power that is reserved to the people. . . . People should be the masters of their own constitution.”

A statement issued by Reilly’s office said: “While the attorney general does not personally support the (petition) proposal, we are confident that letting this question proceed was the proper legal decision.”

Gary Buseck, attorney for GLAD, said after oral arguments that the justices “were particularly active in their questioning.” A decision is expected in four to six weeks.

Meanwhile, lawmakers have put off the ConCon debate, saying it would be “premature” before the court ruling, said Senate President Robert E. Travaglini’s spokeswoman, Ann Dufresne.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; if the Gay Rights advocates truly believe that a majority of the people believe that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to be married, than let it go to a vote and prove it once and for all.

SJC To Consider Gay Marriage Ballot Question

Those Gay Rights groups who think that a majority of the public agree with allowing gay marriage look like idiots when they protest the ballot question that could put a stop to gay marriage in Massachusetts.

On Thursday, the state Supreme Judicial Court – the same court that legalized gay marriage in its landmark 2003 ruling – was set to take up a challenge about whether the ballot question can go forward.

The ballot question seeks to amend the state’s constitution by defining marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. More than 124,000 signatures were collected in support of putting it on the 2008 ballot.

Supporters of same-sex marriage filed a lawsuit in January challenging the legality of such an effort. They claim Attorney General Tom Reilly should not have certified the ballot question because the state constitution specifically bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.

“The people cannot directly challenge and attack a decision of the court,” said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which filed the lawsuit.

Reilly, however, counters that the proposed amendment would not reverse the court’s ruling or invalidate gay marriages that have already been performed. Instead, the question, if approved by voters, would amend the state constitution so that no additional gay marriages could take place.

Before the question could appear on the ballot, supporters would also have to win the votes of 50 lawmakers, 25 percent of the Legislature, in two successive legislative sessions.

As I said, these Gay Rights Advocates like to say that a majority of the public agrees with them. Okay, fine. Then let the question go on the ballot and let the will of the public (that they think agrees with them) be heard. Their strong opposition indicates that they doubt that the gay marriage will be supported by the voting public, thus ending gay marriage in the Commonwealth.

I say we take a new poll to see how the public supports gay marriage…in the form of a ballot question in 2008.