Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Marc Solomon on the Masshachusetts challenge to DOMA


Thank You, Martha!

Early last year, I—along with my colleagues from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders—met with the Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, with whom I’d worked very closely during the marriage battles. We talked about two items—enlisting her support for a transgender non-discrimination bill (which she did right away!) and encouraging her to sue the federal government over the Defense of Marriage Act.

I saw her briefly at an event this past May and she told me to expect a surprise very soon. My fingers were crossed. Well, today I—and all friends of LGBT equality—got a wonderful surprise. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, she challenged DOMA in federal court—the first time a state has ever done so.

Her case is simple, and actually quite conservative. Marriage has always been the province of the states—until DOMA was enacted. Why should big brother Uncle Sam not respect some of the marriages performed in Massachusetts and recognized by Massachusetts law? Are the conservative defenders of DOMA really prepared to argue that Washington knows better than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts what’s best for MA’s citizens?

Coakley is an impassioned advocate of equality. I remember so poignantly her talk to the Massachusetts Democratic Party a couple of years ago when she addressed the issue of marriage equality. She talked about how she married later in life and didn’t have children. But, she said, her vision is of a society where her children could marry the person they love, whether that person turned out to be a man or a woman, and that that decision would be respected, valued and appreciated equally, either way.

Thank you, Martha Coakley, for standing up for equality.

Marc Solomon
Marriage Director

Photo: Bay Windows/Marilyn Humphries

1 comments:

The Mudslinger said...

The premise is simple, but it will be dismissed, and here's why: the issue of DOMA has to do not with fundamental rights but with federal benefits, and because the federal government controls those benefits, they can set the restrictions on them.

A better lawsuit would simply challenge it on Equal Protection Grounds as set out by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, privacy rights under Griswold, and of course freedom of religion and association.