MA attorney general files lawsuit against federal marriage law

[0:00] ..." Attorney General Martha Coakley announced Wednesday that Massachusetts is suing the federal government. Over the national law defining marriage as only between a woman and a"...

[1:21] ..." all couples who choose to assume those rights and responsibilities. Today the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit in federal district court. Challenging the constitutionality. Of section three of the federal defense of marriage act otherwise known"...

[4:15] ..." our lawsuit. That establishes that no state shall be required to recognize same sex marriage that is entered into in another state. That provision is known as the full faith and credit provision and it is not"...

[4:44] ..." include federal income tax credits employment and retirement benefits health insurance coverage Social Security payments. The following are examples of some of the rights and protections that are denied to those couples. Income tax for example"...

[5:18] ..." consequences. But not for single sex couples in Massachusetts. Flexible spending accounts Social Security spousal benefits Medicare. Medical leave. Public safety officer benefits for example spouses of public safety officers. Police officers or firefighters and military"...

[10:37] ..." lawsuit asserts that dilemma is unconstitutional. Because it now requires us the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To disregard the marriages of same sex couples. When implementing federally funded programs that. The again as our Supreme Court said under"...

[0:00]" Attorney General Martha Coakley announced Wednesday that Massachusetts is suing the federal government. Over the national law defining marriage as only between a woman and a man saying it interferes with states' rights to define marriage as they see fit."

[0:12]" In this month of July as we had just celebrated the fourth of July and our Independence Day in the signing of the declaration of independence. We are at least some of us are reminded. That the phrase all men are created equal at the time really referred to only certain man. An and that only certain annual property. Much has clearly changed in this country since 1770 sixes as our country grew our population grew. And our bill of rights in the interpretation. Of them included a rational and evolving sense of what liberty and justice. And equality for -- meant. It's not as important as to what the founding fathers would have done in the eighteenth century is to what their vision. Based upon your spouse principle that time we do today. And we believe that is Massachusetts in 2004. When our supreme judicial court. Interpreted those words of John Adams. In our constitution upon which the US constitution is based. To mean that if this state of Massachusetts is to confer rights and responsibilities. To son married couples. It must provide equally to all couples who choose to assume those rights and responsibilities. Today the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit in federal district court. Challenging the constitutionality. Of section three of the federal defense of marriage act otherwise known as -- In 2004 resigned mentioned Massachusetts became the first state to end the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage and since that time. More than 16000. Committed and qualified same sex couples have married in our state. Our families our communities and even our economy has seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and frankly. No downside. However we've also seen how many of primary residence and their families are being hurt by discriminatory. Unprecedented and we believe unconstitutional. Federal law. The defense of marriage act enacted in 1996 creates a federal definition of marriage. Limited to a union between one man and one woman. What this means is that for married same sex couples in Massachusetts. They are not recognized as married for purposes of all federal laws. We're taking this action today because first we believe that -- Directly interferes with Massachusetts longstanding sovereign authority. To define and regulate the marital status of its residents which by the way all states have enjoyed. Until this instance the ability to define and regulate the marital status of its regular that's residence. Massachusetts had a single category of married persons and we view long married persons equally and identically. Don't divides that category into two distinct and unequal classes of marriage in our state. By denying hundreds of rights and protections to married same sex couples and their families. Second we believe that don't -- is it discriminatory laws that unfairly penalizes. Married same sex couples and their families. And third don't know what's Massachusetts in the difficult position of choosing. Between complying with the mandates of federal programs that require Massachusetts to disregard marriages that are valid under our state law. Or risk losing federal funding by ensuring the Massachusetts residents are treated equally under our constitution. -- is. An act as I mentioned enacted in 1996 by our congress it was passed in anticipation. That the state of Hawaii would recognize the right of same sex couples to marry. It has to substantive provisions of section three which is the one we challenge today. It defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for the purpose of all federal laws and regulations. And I should mention -- the other substantive provision section two is not challenged in our lawsuit. That establishes that no state shall be required to recognize same sex marriage that is entered into in another state. That provision is known as the full faith and credit provision and it is not challenged today by us in this lawsuit. But would still does mean for Massachusetts couples with the application of section three is that access to over eleven --"

[4:38]" important rights and protections that directly affect couples and their families. Are affected. These include federal income tax credits employment and retirement benefits health insurance coverage Social Security payments. The following are examples of some of the rights and protections that are denied to those couples. Income tax for example married couples have the option to file jointly which can enable them to pay lower taxes spouses can contribute portions of their income. Two IRAs and their spouses. Not and not in Massachusetts who are otherwise legally married. The gift tax spouse -- seven unlimited ability to make Gibson transfer property one another without incurring tax consequences. But not for single sex couples in Massachusetts. Flexible spending accounts Social Security spousal benefits Medicare. Medical leave. Public safety officer benefits for example spouses of public safety officers. Police officers or firefighters and military veterans are entitled to health care coverage annuities. And tuition fees as well as survivor benefits if their spouses killed in the line of duty but not in Massachusetts. For the same sex couples. Because until all of those above rights and protections are denied to unmarried same sex couples and their families. As I mentioned same sex couples had been married quite successfully in Massachusetts for over five years. They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they're gay or straight. Married same sex couples seek nothing more than to be treated fairly and equally. Like all other married couples with all of the protections and responsibilities that come with marriage. And BC that in our losses today. I might add that it is my belief that because it has been so successful in Massachusetts that other states particularly in New England have followed our lead. And we believe. That the move towards equality in this country will dictate. That it is. Only fair and just that same sex marriages be recognized -- our lawsuit again is confined to Massachusetts and -- on Massachusetts. It affects the commonwealth as we -- employer. The commonwealth issues family health policies to its employees. These employees may have teen health care coverage for their spouses. But because a section three of the -- of the commonwealth must withhold additional federal taxes from married individuals same sex couples. Who choose to cover their spouses and their health insurance plans. Different sex spouses do not pay the extra income tax because health care coverage for those spouses does not count as taxable income under the federal tax code. Don't -- through its application. To the internal revenue code requires Massachusetts. To be part of discrimination against same sex couples and frankly creates -- paperwork. Nightmare and an unnecessary burden as we have this two tiered system bookkeeping for all of these benefits. It affects the commonwealth as we are an administrator jointly funded programs for mass health which is our Medicaid program. We received funding from federal government and provide health care coverage to low and moderate income individuals. Stillman makes us requires by law that we treat individuals differently. Depending upon. Whether -- same sex couples or different sex couples. In terms of veterans services. The Massachusetts department of veterans services operates cemeteries and -- Winchendon for the burial of Massachusetts veterans and their spouses. We received money for those purposes in federal grants to construct and improve them. The federal government has said that in this instance we cannot in -- in either of those cemeteries the same sex spouses of military veterans. Because they are not considered to be spouses under federal law. That's seems to us to not make sense and to be unfair. The theories upon which we brought this lawsuit. -- that the violates. The dormant violates the tenth amendment to the car to the bill of rights. It violates our spending clause and we are seeking a claim of declaratory relief as to Massachusetts and the effect of doom. We are specifically seeking a declaration that section three of -- is applied to Massachusetts. Are federally funding programs is unconstitutional. We are also seeking an injunction prohibits the federal government and its agencies. Or forcing against the commonwealth. We believe based upon ten commandments sovereignty issues that congress has impermissibly. Interfered with state sovereignty. In violation of the tenth amendment -- the United States constitution. Briefly under our system of government there are although there are not many left there are certain powers and authorities that are delegated. To the federal government and the others remained the State's. For over 200 years the federal government recognize that the authority to create and regulate. Marital status was a power that belonged exclusively to the states and wasn't essential aspect of each State's sovereignty. However as a result of this statute it's a dilemma. The federal government. You -- that sovereignty we believe and is a violation of the constitution. We also believe. That it violates the spending clause. Because under the spending clause power congress' wide latitude Reno to impose conditions on states seeking to obtain funding for a variety of programs. We recognize that and we accept that for example congress can require states not to discriminate on the basis of race as a condition for funding. However one clear -- limitation congressional authority in this area. Is that congress cannot interstates. To violate the constitutional rights of its citizens in order to qualify for funding. Our lawsuit asserts that dilemma is unconstitutional. Because it now requires us the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To disregard the marriages of same sex couples. When implementing federally funded programs that. The again as our Supreme Court said under our constitution. It is unconstitutional. From Massachusetts to not collapsing sex couples to marry. We believe that we cannot and should not be required to violate the equal protection rights of arsonists. In Massachusetts who choose to be married. What does Lawson does not cover. It is is that mention limited to the impact of section three. And only on the commonwealth. We do not assert any claims regarding how other states define marriage. Nor is this necessarily about the right to marry we don't assert claims. That where -- the federal constitution permits or prevents the state from extending civil marriage license to same sex couples. What we do seek to -- today about filing this lawsuit however is to remedy. The fundamental unfairness. That doing what causes to Massachusetts and its residents by denying those residents equal treatment under the law."