Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Politics

Politics | 03/03/2009 12:00 pm

Massachusetts Group Sues Federal Government Over 'Defense of Marriage Act'

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Shutterstock

The federal government finds itself under fire from same-sex couples today.

Six Massachusetts-based couples who married after the state legalized gay marriage — a ruling that has since been struck down — have filed a suit calling the government’s Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Three single men are also involved.

The act, which prohibits the government from recognizing gay marriage, wrongfully discriminates against same-sex couples, the suit says.

One of the complainants is Dean T. Hara, who was married to the late Rep. Gerry Studds and denied a widower’s pension, spoke out against the act, saying, "It hurts. But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we’re all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."

Though the case hasn’t even started, most analysts see it eventually heading to the Supreme Court. The White House offered no comment.

Read more about: Gay, Homosexuality, Lesbians, Massachusetts, News, Relationships, Same-sex Marriage, U.S.

17 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Mommy Dearest

Ahahahahahahaha.  Sorry, my dears.  Ahahahahahaha.  Defense of marriage? 

We have a 50% divorce rate, dahlings.  Ahahahahaha.

Sorry, my dears.  I just can’t stop laughing.

By Mommy Dearest on 03/03/2009 12:19 pm
Ms. Dee
It is patently Unconstitutional to prohibit the legal recognition of same-sex marriages on an equal basis with mixed-sex marriages.  Anything shy of this conflates religious belief with human rights protections.  Marriage is a religious rite, but legal recognition and benefits should be commonly dispensed in a secular, Constitutional society.  But part of me feels like, any either case, married couples should be required to stay together for at least three or four years before any benefits kick in.
By Ms. Dee on 03/03/2009 12:20 pm
Jimmy Shaw
I’ve been married to the same beautiful woman for 33 years. I think it is easier these days to get out of being married than staying married. I agree a couple should have to stay together for a period of time before "benefits" kick in. I just think 10 years is a real good number (lol). I also think that we have the "rights" we have and if we want new ones (Human Rights), then we need to amend the constitution and boy that will be a heck of a fight.
By Jimmy Shaw on 03/12/2009 8:05 pm
Andrea Brandon
"….married couples should be required to stay together for at least three or four years before any benefits kick in." By Ms. Dee on 03/03/2009 1:20 pm Kind of like training wheels for those first few years. Not a bad idea.
By Andrea Brandon on 03/03/2009 12:26 pm
Sarah N.

Yay!  Its about time!

DOMA is flatly unconstitutional on its face.  The real question is:  will the current US Supreme Court (when it gets there) remember the full faith and credit clause?

By Sarah N. on 03/03/2009 12:32 pm
deber B
With universal health care on the horizon why does it matter?
By deber B on 03/03/2009 12:43 pm
Sarah N.

It doesn’t.  Because the gay marriage debate is entirely about health care and not about disparate treatment in the eyes of the law in other areas like estates and inheritance.

 

No…wait a second….thats not it at all.

Man if my boredom continues much longer you’re going to have to do some heavy reading. 

By Sarah N. on 03/03/2009 12:46 pm
Republican 4Life
Homosexuality is sinful and should be illegal.  When this great nation reverts to its God fearing ways under the great Republican Party, true change will come.
By Republican 4Life on 03/03/2009 2:25 pm
Sharon Belko
I would dearly love to introduce you to my son and his beautiful partner - they’ve been together 16 yrs. (a lot longer than a whole heap ‘o hetro’s). They’re gracious, generous, compassionate. loving and generally beautiful humans, inside and out.  I’m thinking that your ACI thinking doesn’t resonate with a lot of human compassion!!
By Sharon Belko on 03/03/2009 6:06 pm
C Hardy

R4L…questions for you…who are you & why are you so against them getting married?  what would it cost you?  would it change your life?  would it affect your healthcare or income?

Why are you so against it? 

By C Hardy on 03/03/2009 7:21 pm
Lizzie R.
What god do you worship? Never went to a chiurch like you must attend….very bizarre.
By Lizzie R. on 03/03/2009 9:10 pm
Zera Lee
Leviticus 18: (1) “The LORD said to Moses, (2) “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. (3) You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. (4) You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. (5) Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.” (22) ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” —— Homosexuality is forbidden to male Israelites. The prohibition does not extend further. It is not identified explicitly (for all you “strict constructionists”) as a sin. There is no authority or instruction given to forbid homosexuality to Egypt, Canaan, or elsewhere. That would be religious persecution. And just for giggles: there is no ban, or even mention, of female homosexuality.
By Zera Lee on 03/04/2009 2:36 pm
Lila Kuh
It’s unconstitutional not only because of our national doctrine of separation of church and state, but because the Constitution relegates to the separate States any and all powers that it does not specifically assign to the Federal government.
By Lila Kuh on 03/04/2009 7:59 am
Zera Lee
The only thing that the “Defense of Marriage Act” defends is deep-seated prejudice.
By Zera Lee on 03/04/2009 4:15 pm
Jimmy Shaw
I’m not sure God will save this country at the rate we are ruining it. With the amount of intolerance, bigotry and hate growing. My question would be Why would God want to save it and for what? Salvation is an individual issue in my opinion and not a national one. There were many faiths in communist countries before their "collapse". This is a huge country with tons on wonderful people. I don’t agree with homosexuality, but it isn’t religious based. I think that anyone should be able to get a "civil union" and move on. Although I doubt that is the view of a lot of people.
By Jimmy Shaw on 03/12/2009 8:25 pm
12next ›last »