m******8
发帖数: 2153 | 1 BOSTON — A legal battle over a law that denies federal benefits to married
gay couples is headed to a federal appeals court in Massachusetts, the first
state in the nation to legalize gay marriage.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by Congress in 1996, defines
marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prevents the federal
government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
A federal judge in Massachusetts declared a key section of the law
unconstitutional in 2010 after Attorney General Martha Coakley and the legal
group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders sued. Judge Joseph Tauro found
that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a
state to define marriage and denies married gay couples an array of federal
benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to
file joint tax returns.
An appeal by a bipartisan congressional group in both cases will be heard
Wednesday by the federal appeals court in Boston.
For Jo Ann Whitehead and Bette Jo Green of Boston, the law means they are
unable to plan for the future the way other married couples can.
The couple, who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed by GLAD, have been
together nearly three decades and married for seven years, since shortly
after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2004. Green, 69, a
labor and delivery nurse, has always earned more money than Whitehead, 70, a
garden educator. But because of the law, known as DOMA, Whitehead has been
denied the "spousal benefit" usually allowed to the lower-earning spouse
under Social Security. They estimate that is a loss of about $3,600 a year.
They also estimate that they lose about $1,000 a year because they are
unable to file a joint federal tax return.
"Being marginalized for really what I view as no good reason is unfortunate,
" Whitehead said. "It would be nice to not be so invisible anymore as a
married couple."
DOMA was enacted when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex
marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to
recognize such marriages. Since the national law was passed in 1996, many
states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states
have approved gay marriage: Connecticut, New York, Iowa, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland and Washington as well as the District of
Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be
subject to referendums.
In Massachusetts' lawsuit, Coakley argued that the law violates the U.S.
Constitution by interfering with the state's right to make its own marriage
laws and forces the state to violate the constitutional rights of its
residents by treating married gay couples differently than other married
couples.
"We essentially have to keep two sets of books - you're married for state
purposes, but you're not married for federal purposes. It requires us, in a
way, to discriminate against our citizens because so many federal benefits
are distributed through state agencies," Coakley said Friday.
In GLAD's lawsuit, Tauro found that the law violates the equal protection
clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Massachusetts made this decision to marry these people, and they are
married," said GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto. "Now they come before the federal
government as married people, as anybody else in Massachusetts does, but
only the same-sex couples are denied recognition under federal law."
In 2011, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Department of
Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that,
House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to
defend it.
Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court
this week on behalf of 26 states that oppose Obama's health care law, will
argue on behalf of the bipartisan group in the DOMA case. Clement did not
return a call seeking comment Friday.
In legal briefs filed in court, Clement argues that the challenges to the
law appear to be based on the claim that Congress has no legitimate interest
in providing a federal definition of marriage and has no choice but to
adopt the state definition.
"Congress has multiple rational bases for preferring a uniform federal
definition over a patchwork, so DOMA should survive unless there is
something categorically different about marriage. There is not," Clement
wrote.
"Congress has ample power to define the terms used in federal statutes to
apportion federal benefits and burdens. Any other rule would turn the
Supremacy Clause and our entire constitutional structure upside down."
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2012/03/31/2278488/gay-marriage-law-heads-to-appeals.html#storylink=cpy | k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 2 感觉真是不远了.
想想开版之初（还是俱乐部的时候），有人预言，美国同性婚姻合法至少还要几十年
married
first
legal
【在 m******8 的大作中提到】
: BOSTON — A legal battle over a law that denies federal benefits to married
: gay couples is headed to a federal appeals court in Massachusetts, the first
: state in the nation to legalize gay marriage.
: The federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by Congress in 1996, defines
: marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prevents the federal
: government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
: A federal judge in Massachusetts declared a key section of the law
: unconstitutional in 2010 after Attorney General Martha Coakley and the legal
: group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders sued. Judge Joseph Tauro found
: that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a
| a***n
发帖数: 2632 | 3 当共和党也放弃DOMA时，就没有阻力了。
我总觉得要移民法改革之后才会有。毕竟影响面更大。不过，也可能同性结婚阻力更小。 | t*******e
发帖数: 2113 | 4 不一定，移民改革阻力太大，合法移民和非法移民怎麼區別對待，兩黨分歧太大。
同性婚姻的議題並不複雜，而且一旦通過，奧巴馬得多出來多少選票啊？！
小。
【在 a***n 的大作中提到】
: 当共和党也放弃DOMA时，就没有阻力了。
: 我总觉得要移民法改革之后才会有。毕竟影响面更大。不过，也可能同性结婚阻力更小。
| m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 5 我觉得对OBAMA的选票不会有什么影响吧，反正LGBT一直就是民主党的铁票箱，通过不
通过同婚应该也没什么影响。
【在 t*******e 的大作中提到】
: 不一定，移民改革阻力太大，合法移民和非法移民怎麼區別對待，兩黨分歧太大。
: 同性婚姻的議題並不複雜，而且一旦通過，奧巴馬得多出來多少選票啊？！
:
: 小。
| t*******e
发帖数: 2113 | 6 那倒是，不過肯定有催票效應。
本來不想去投票的，一看通過了，天上下刀子也去投他一票表示感謝。
比如我這種人肯定就是這樣。。。。。。
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得对OBAMA的选票不会有什么影响吧，反正LGBT一直就是民主党的铁票箱，通过不
: 通过同婚应该也没什么影响。
| m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 7 你无所谓啦，反正你投不投纽约都是民主党的，哈哈
【在 t*******e 的大作中提到】
: 那倒是，不過肯定有催票效應。
: 本來不想去投票的，一看通過了，天上下刀子也去投他一票表示感謝。
: 比如我這種人肯定就是這樣。。。。。。
|
|
