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.

VoteOnMarriage Puts Fight To Save Traditional Marriage On Hold For Now

A letter from Kris Mineau of VoteOnMarriage, via my inbox:

Dear Friends,

VoteOnMarriage.org has decided not to immediately pursue another petition drive for an amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Many of you poured your hearts and souls into this campaign. You collected signatures, volunteered in the office, collected postcards and lobbied your legislators. A great many of you wrote to encourage us to start over again immediately and try again.

But such a move would be very unlikely to succeed at this time. While we do not doubt that we could shatter our signature drive record, any petition beginning this fall would immediately be laid before a joint session of the legislature next spring. The legislature will not have changed; the same exact legislators would be voting on it. We believe it unlikely many would change back to our side with Governor Patrick, Speaker DiMasi, and Senate President Murray pulling the strings.

We at VoteOnMarriage want to be good stewards of our people’s time, money, and efforts. We know how much you have sacrificed and the hard work that has gone into this effort. But given the make-up of the current legislature, we believe a petition drive at this time is not a wise decision.

We will keep this movement alive by other means, and are working on plans to do just that. We will continue to mobilize our grassroots network and educate people on the importance of marriage between a man and a woman.

For those of you who are disappointed, don’t fret, Mineau assured us that they “are not going away!”

The Right To Vote in Massachusetts Is So Last Wednesday

The loonies at KnowThyNeighbor are also celebrating the legislature’s denying the people of Massachusetts a chance to vote on the Marriage Amendment. They say,

From Kris Mineau to Mitt Romney to the Legislators Who Avoided Enlightenment to Those Nasty Anti-Gay Commenters Littering the Blogosphere…We May Soon Only Be Able to Find Bigots In Museums (or on KnowThyNeighbor.org)

Correction: If the gay lobby keep getting their way, we may soon only be able to find real marriage in history books.

The vote on the Marriage Amendment had nothing to do with gay or anti-gay. It had to do with allowing the people to have a voice. The power of the people was scoffed at by Deval Patrick, the SJC, and the legislature. And for the folks at KnowThyNeighbor (the real bigots in this debate) to keep framing this issue in terms of gay vs. anti-gay or as a question of civil rights, they are missing big picture. The people demanded a chance to have a say on what the definition of marriage is. The people spoke, and the legislature silenced us. If the best they can do is accuse people who wanted a vote of being bigots, they clearly they have legitimate arguments to deny the people the right to vote on marriage.

The folks at KnowThyNeighbor and MassEquality coudln’t achieve a legitimate victory. Our governor had to bribe legislators to switch their votes. If they want to be proud of this, then that’s their prerogative. The fight isn’t over.

Legislature Votes Against Letting The People Vote

VoteOnMarriage.org blames pressure from Governor Patrick, Speaker DiMasi, and Senate President Murray.

Boston – VoteOnMarriage.org – the campaign to allow the voters to decide on the definition of marriage in Massachusetts – expressed outrage over today’s Constitutional Convention vote on the Marriage Amendment citing the unrelenting pressure by Governor Patrick, House Speaker DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray forcing some lawmakers to switch their positions on the issue during the 11th hour.

“The Marriage Amendment won its first legislative vote and was on track to win its second with a healthy margin. The unprecedented pressure by leaders on Beacon Hill – the rumors of patronage jobs by Governor Patrick and arm-twisting by House Speaker DiMasi – derailed the largest initiative petition drive by citizens in the Commonwealth’s history and this is a brutal loss for citizen-centered democracy,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman, VoteOnMarriage.org.

All three Beacon Hill leaders opposed the people’s right to vote on marriage. Allegations of bribery by the Governor and arm twisting by the House Speaker as a means of pressuring legislators to switch their vote have been reported widely in the press in recent weeks.

The fight for marriage and democracy will continue though. VoteOnMarriage.org is not giving up.

“The Governor and House Speaker have been unrelenting in fighting the natural course of advancement on the marriage amendment and the people’s right to vote,” said Mineau. “We will look very closely at the circumstances by which legislators switched their vote for ethics violations or improprieties.”

Citizens in 45 states have weighed in on the definition of marriage either through the legislative process or by constitutional amendments. VoteOnMarriage.org vows to continue the fight for the people of Massachusetts to be heard on this issue.

The gay lobby may have won a victory today, but the people will not give up to have their voices heard. The shameful and unethical behavior of our Governor and House Speaker will not be ignored. The voters of Massachusetts should have the right to vote on this issue.

This is not the end.

UPDATE: The bottom line is the people of Massachusetts lost today. The legislature, true to form, denied the will of the people, and with the help of unethical interventions by our governor, they managed to deliver a defeat for traditional marriage, traditional values, and of our democratic process.

We wanted a vote.

Despite claims by the radical-left that Massachusetts supports gay marriage, Deval Patrick and other opponents of preserving traditional marriage were apparently so afraid of letting the people have a say on what their values are, that they had to manufacture this defeat.

We wanted a vote.

Americans have fought and died for the right to vote. Instead of giving us the opportunity to vote on marriage, the legislature effectively gave the citizens of Massachusetts a vote of no confidence. They delivered the message that they do not trust us to make up our own minds about marriage.

We wanted a vote.

While the radical left and gay lobby declare victory, the state of Massachusetts has become the laughing-stock of the country.

We wanted a vote.

Coakley Promises To Ignore The Law

When John Ashcroft was asked during his confirmation hearings for U.S. Attorney General about his views on abortion, he said, “I well understand that the role of attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it.”

Martha Coakley, however, sees her job as Massachusetts Attorney General to selectively enforce the law and actively oppose laws she disagrees with.

Attorney General Martha Coakley said last night that if Massachusetts voters were to approve a ban on same-sex marriages, she would back any efforts to challenge the measure on constitutional grounds.

A constitutional ban could go on the ballot in November 2008 if it receives a second vote of approval from the Legislature.

“I think we can easily anticipate that if the proposed amendment was successful, there would be protracted, hard-fought litigation about the constitutionality of such a provision,” she said in a speech at the annual dinner of the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association. “If that battle is necessary, you have my support.”

As our Attorney General, Martha Coakley should not be making such statements. She may have her own opinion, but if the people of Massachusetts do vote down gay “marriage,” then it becomes her job to enforce that law, not use her position to fight against it.

Kris Mineau of VoteOnMarriage.org is equally displeased with her statement.

“Making political hay before like-minded advocates on a measure that has yet to be vetted by the legislature and the people smacks of a kind of advocacy that does not reflect due process and the rights of all the citizens Attorney General Coakley has been elected to serve.

“The Attorney General has injected a level of personal bias into her professional role and that is inappropriate for a constitutional officer of the Commonwealth.”