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.

One Party Rule Equals Corruption Cover Ups?

in a state known for corruption, one would think that the House Ethics Committee would be not only be very busy, but regularly finding unethical behavior in government. One might think that, but when the government is controlled by one party that has a virtual monopoly of power, you get an ethics committee that magically hasn’t found any unethical behavior in nearly 20 years.

A female lawmaker’s allegation that a male House colleague told her, “I could really hurt you if I wanted to,” is providing a rare public glimpse into one of the most secretive panels on Beacon Hill.

The House Ethics Committee is investigating the complaint by Rep. Jennifer Callahan, D-Sutton, but members of the committee are prohibited not only from discussing the case publicly but also from disclosing any information about any matters before them.

Nor can they reveal even the most basic details of the committee’s operations ‚Äî such as how many complaints they deal with in any given year.

One thing is known about the Ethics Committee’s work, however: It rarely finds anything unethical about the behavior of any member of the House, even when those members admit to, or are convicted of, wrongdoing.

If the committee does recommend disciplinary action against Jennifer Callahan’s colleague, it will be the first time in nearly two decades it has held a state lawmaker accountable for violating House ethics rules.

As the article indicates, there’s been plenty over the years to keep the ethics committee busy:

While the committee has not disciplined a single lawmaker since 1991, a number of prominent legislators have committed what could be considered ethical breaches and have been punished for them outside the Legislature.

Two House speakers have stepped down: Charles Flaherty after pleading guilty to federal tax evasion and Thomas Finneran prior to pleading guilty to obstruction of justice, a felony, in a federal voting rights case.

In 1994, a judge ruled that then Rep. Kevin Fitzgerald, a Boston Democrat who acted as an attorney to a mentally ill “bag lady,” manipulated the woman into leaving him and an aide a $400,000 inheritance.

If the Ethics Committee considered those cases, it took no action.

Nor did the Ethics Committee take any action after Rep. Marie St. Fleur, the vice chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, admitted to owing thousands in federal taxes. The revelation did force the Boston Democrat out of the 2006 race for lieutenant governor.

The ethics of some committee members also have been questioned.

Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, D-Chelsea and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is also a defense attorney who is among lawmakers blamed for watering down a 2005 law cracking down on drunken drivers.

Another member is Rep. Thomas Petrolati, D-Ludlow, who has accepted campaign contributions from known felons, according to published reports. Petrolati, speaker pro-tempore, ranks second only to the House speaker.

And perhaps ironically, DiMasi, who ordered the probe into Callahan’s allegations, is the subject of four complaints Republicans have filed over whether his business and personal connections have affected major legislation.

So, will the people of the Commonwealth demand real accountability from our elected “leaders?” I’m not confident they will. When you think about the corrupt politicians who get reelected in this state (Gerry Studds ring a bell?) I am sure that a majority of Massachusetts voters (in other words, registered Democrats) don’t particularly care about corruption in the state government, since the party with all the power is their own.

Deval Patrick: High Approval, Low Performance

The Herald’s Casey Ross explains in his “year in review” of Deval Patrick:

Despite overwhelming support from Bay State voters, Gov. Deval Patrick failed to deliver on promises of property tax relief and a flood of new street cops in 2007 as he battled through early political missteps and frayed relations with lawmakers in his own party.

With his first year nearing an end, Patrick is still fighting to convince Democratic legislators to even consider some proposals.

But the governor also says he has quietly built support in the State House for efforts to reform education and license resort casinos.

“There is broad support for the principle of (licensing casinos),” Patrick told the Herald, predicting legislative victory in 2008. “There is debate about how to use the revenues for the state, and I’m open to that.”

But Patrick’s critics Рand even some Democratic colleagues Рsay his primary failing so far has been an unwillingness to work with lawmakers to craft his proposals, leaving many of them out in the cold as he files one massive initiative after another.

“He came into office thinking he had a mandate from the public but what he didn’t realize was that he wasn’t the only one who got elected in November of 2006,” said House Speaker Sal DiMasi. “I think we now have a better understanding of where each of us is coming from, and I’m looking forward to the next year.”

House Minority Leader Brad Jones was more pointed in his criticism: “The year in review was lackluster, nondescript and left a lot of unanswered questions,” said Jones (R-North Reading).

“You can make an argument that we got less done with one-party government than when we had two parties,” he said.

The question remains: Why would Mr. Together We Can still have high approval ratings when Together He Couldn’t? Perhaps, in the same way Gerry Studds managed to easily be reelected for six terms despite his affair with an underage congressional page, Massachusetts Democrats care less about accomplishments, and more about party loyalty.

Studds, The Seducer of An Underage Male Page, Memorialized

The late Gerry Studds, who was censured by Congress after his sexual “relationship” (otherwise known as statutory rape) with an underage male page became public in the 1980s, was memorialized this weekend. His legacy has been conveniently constructed to be that of the first openly gay congressman and a “champion of gay rights.” His legacy bares little resemblance to the one left by Mark Foley, who did not have any sexual encounter with a male page, and immediately resigned from Congress after the story about his lewd conversations broke in the media.

Nope, after Studds’ “relationship” with the underage male page broke, the voters of his district kept reelecting him, and he’s become a symbol… not a symbol of sleaze, but rather of pride and an inspiration for “thousands of gays and lesbians by acknowledging his sexuality without apology.”

The Associated Press story even chose to lionize the scum-bag, giving his page sex scandal only scant mention, but still managed to turn the incident into a positive and shameless affair that was the catalyst for his “brave and unapologetic” coming out of the closet.

Had Mark Foley been a Democrat his page scandal would have turned out very differently. He would have been called brave and an inspiration by his fellow Democrats. He would have held a press conference with Barney Frank by his side, announcing he would not apologize for his homosexuality and announce his intentions not only to stay in Congress, but to continue his reelection bid.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds Passes

Former Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, died today at age 69.

Interesting note, The Boston Globe’s obituary waited until the sixth paragraph to briefly mention Rep. Studds’ congressional page sex scandal. the Boston Herald’s obituary, on the other hand, mentioned the scandal in the opening line, and gave considerable attention to it.