Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
It affects the Commonwealth, as we are an administrator of jointly-funded programs.
For MassHealth, which is our Medicaid program, we receive funding from the federal government
and provide healthcare coverage to low and moderate-income individuals. DOMA, requires
by law, that we treat individuals differently depending upon whether they are same-sex couple
or different-sex couples. In terms of veterans’ services, the Massachusetts Department of
Veterans’ Services operates cemeteries in Agawam and Winchendon for the burial of Massachusetts
veterans and their spouses. We receive money for those purposes and federal grants to construct
and improve them. The federal government has said that, in this instance, we cannot inter
in either of its cemeteries the same-sex spouses of military veterans, because they are not
considered to be spouses under federal law. That seems, to us, to not make sense and to
be unfair. The theories by which we brought this lawsuit allege that they violate, that
DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment, to the Bill of Rights. It violates the Spending Clause,
and we are seeking a claim of declaratory relief as to Massachusetts and the effect
of DOMA. We are specifically seeking a declaration that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to Massachusetts
and its federally funded programs, is unconstitutional. We are also seeking an injunction that prohibits
the federal government and its agencies for enforcing DOMA against the Commonwealth. We
believe, based upon Tenth Amendment sovereignty issues, that Congress has impermissibly interfered
with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment of 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 others
remaining to the states. For over 200 years, the federal government recognized that the
authority to create and regulate marital status was a power that belonged exclusively to the
states and was an essential aspect of each state’s sovereignty. However, as a result
of this statute, as of DOMA, the federal government invades 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 has wide latitude 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 on congressional authority in this
area is that Congress cannot induce states to violate the constitutional rights of its
citizens in order to qualify for funding. Our lawsuit asserts that DOMA is unconstitutional
because it now requires us, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to disregard the marriages
of same-sex couples when implementing federally-funded programs. Again, as our Supreme Court said
under our Constitution, it is unconstitutional for Massachusetts to not allow same-sex couples
to marry. We believe that we cannot and should not violate the equal protection rights of
our citizens in Massachusetts who choose to be married. What this lawsuit does not cover?
It is, as I mentioned, limited to Section 3 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 whether the federal constitution permits or
prevents a state from extending civil marriage license to same-sex couples. What we do seek
to do today by filing this lawsuit, however, is to remedy the fundamental unfairness that
DOMA causes to Massachusetts and its residents by denying those residents equal treatment
under the law.