July 9, 2009 : AG Martha Coakley on Marriage and the State

WHEN WE CONTINUE, MARTHA

COAKLEY FILES A LAWSUIT

AGAINST THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT.

MASSACHUSETTS THE FIRST STATE

TO LEGALIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE,

IS NOW THE FIRST STATE TO

CHALLENGE THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF

MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN A

MAN AND A WOMAN.

YESTERDAY ATTORNEY GENERAL

MARTHA COAKLEY FILED SUIT

AGAINST THE DEFENSE OF

MARRIAGE ACT, CLAIMING IT'S

THE STATE'S RIGHT TO DEFINE

MARRIAGE AND THAT THE ACT

UNFAIRLY PENALIZES THE MORE

THAN 16,000 COUPLES WHO HAVE

MARRIED IN MASSACHUSETTS.

AND SHE SAYS THE DEFENSE OF

MARRIAGE ACT DISCRIMINATES

AGAINST THE HEALTH BENEFITS

AND BURIAL RIGHTS OF SAME SEX

COUPLES.

AND JOINING ME NOW IS

MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL

MARTHA COAKLEY.

WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THIS IS FASCINATING.

WHO DO YOU FILE THIS AGAINST?

>> WELL, IT'S ACTUALLY BECAUSE

IT IS THE U.S. STATUTE, IT'S

ACTUALLY AGAINST THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDED BY

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AND KATHLEEN SEBELIUS AS SHE

IS THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES, AND THEN

BECAUSE WE INVOLVE CHARGES

AROUND VETERANS, THE SECRETARY

OF VETERANS, BUT THAT'S

OBVIOUSLY IN THEIR OFFICIAL

CAPACITY.

>> SO WOULD IT BE HEARD HERE

IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT?

>> IT WILL START, IT'S BEEN

FILED IN OUR FEDERAL DISTRICT

COURT, THAT'S WHERE THE

FINDING OF FACT WOULD BE.

A DECISION BY THAT JUDGE OF

COURSE COULD BE APPEALED TO A

CIRCUIT COURT.

BUT IT WILL BE IN THE FEDERAL

DISTRICT COURT IN BOSTON.

>> EXPLAIN THIS, BECAUSE YOU

SAY IT VIOLATES THE BOTH THE

10th AMENDMENT AND THE 14th.

>> BECAUSE IT'S INVADES THE

SPENDING CLAUSE, AND BECAUSE

WE AS A SOVEREIGN ENTITY, A

STATE IS REALLY SORT OF A

STATES RIGHTS CASE, HAVE

ALWAYS HAD THE RIGHT TO

DETERMINE MARRIAGE.

WHO IS MARRIED, WHO ISN'T,

WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS AROUND IT.

DOMA NOW CREATES A SITUATION

WHERE IT'S TELLING

MASSACHUSETTS YOU REALLY ARE

TO HAVE TWO-TIERED CITIZENSHIP

HERE.

PEOPLE MARRIED UNDER TATE LAW

AROUNDES IN LAY MARRIED UNDER

FEDERAL LAW, HAVE YOU TO KEEP

TRACK OF IT AND IT MAY

BENEFITS WHICH --

MAY AFFECT WHICH BENEFITS THEY

CAN GET OR NOT GET.

IN SOME WAYS IT'S ON BEHALF OF

THE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR STATE

WHO ARE ALSO DISCRIMINATED

AGAINST, BECAUSE THEIR

BENEFITS WILL BE TREATED

DIFFERENTLY UNDER STATE LAW

THAN FEDERAL LAW.

THAT'S WHY IT'S A LITTLE

DIFFERENT FROM THE SUIT FILED

BY GLAD, WHICH IS ON BEHALF OF

INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE TANDING

TO SAY WE ARE SAME SEX MARRIED

COUPLES IN MASSACHUSETTS AND

WE FIND THAT PERSONALLY THIS

VIOLATES OUR RIGHTS.

AND OURS IS COMPLEMENTARY BUT

DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS ON

BEHALF OF THE STATE.

>> AND THE HEALTH BENEFITS AND

BURIAL BENEFITS IN THE CASE OF

VETERANS, AGAIN A FEDERAL

CASE?

>> CORRECT, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE

SAME SEX PARTNER IN

MASSACHUSETTS AND YOUR SPOUSE

WANTS TO BE BURIED BUT, IF IT

IS AN OPPOSITE SEX THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT WILL PAY FOR THAT

AND ALLOW FOR I.

CURRENTLY WE CAN'T DO THAT.

SO THE SAME SEX SPOUSE OF A

VETERAN IS DENIED THAT BENEFIT

IN MASSACHUSETTS AND THAT'S A

DIRECT IMPACT ON THEM AND

THEIR RIGHTS, AND FRANKLY YOU

COULD UNDERSTAND IF THERE WERE

SOME BENEFIT TO DOMA.

THERE IS NO REALLY RATIONAL

BASIS FOR IT.

IT WAS PASSED IN 1996

PRESUMABLY TO PREVENT HAWAII

OR OTHER STATES IN STATES THAT

DON'T HAVE GAY MARRIAGE OR

SAME SEX MARRIAGE THERE'S, IT

DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT, BUT

IT DID HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON

MASSACHUSETTS AND NOW THERE

ARE OTHER STATES IN WHICH IT

WILL IMPACT THEIR ABILITY TO

ADMINISTER THEIR OWN FUNDS,

AND CREATES TWO TIERS OF

CITIZENSHIP.

>> WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR

OUT OF A LAWSUIT?

DO YOU WANT A WAIVER?

IT SAYS YOU WOULD LIKE SOME OF

THOSE REGULATIONS LIFTED, OR

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE DOMA

DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

>> WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT OR

THE JURISDICTION TO SAY THAT

THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE

DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT

WE ARE ASKING FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE

APPLIED TO MASSACHUSETTS.

IN OTHER WORDS THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT SHOULD ACCEPT THE

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS

DEFINED BY MASSACHUSETTS, AND

IN THE END A DETERMINATION

THAT AT LEAST AS TO

MASSACHUSETTS IT'S

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T USUALLY DO

THESE THINGS PIECEMEAL.

IT'S WHERE WE START.

THERE COULD BE OTHER TAITS

THAT FILE THEIR OWN SUITS AND

THERE IS A MOVE AFOOT TO

REPEAL, WHICH I WOULD HOPE

WOULD HAPPEN AND MAKE THIS

SUIT MOOT.

>> A LOT OF THIS IS

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT, PRESUMABLY

A SUPPORTER OF SAME SEX

MARRIAGE RIGHTS.

BUT IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES,

PEOPLE MIGHT JUST IGNORE THIS,

SAY A REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY

GENERAL.

IN OTHER WORDS, DID YOU FILE

THIS ON BEHALF OF THE 16,000

SAME SEX MARRIED COUPLES OR ON

THE CITIZENRY OF

MASSACHUSETTS?

>> I SUPPOSE IN SOME SENSE

IT'S BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT IT REALLY IS AS A

COMMONWEALTH, YOU KNOW, WE SAY

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE

WHAT WE BELIEVE IS MARRIAGE

HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS.

THAT'S BEEN DETERMINED FOR THE

PAST FIVE YEARS, IT'S WORKED

OUT WELL FOR MASSACHUSETTS AND

EVERYBODY IN THE STATE.

AND NOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

IN REALLY AN ODD FLIP OF WHAT

THE HISTORY OF THIS HAS BEEN

IN TERMS OF STATES RIGHTS, THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS COMING

IN SAYING NO, WE'RE NOT GOING

TO TREAT THESE PEOPLE AS

MARRIED, BECAUSE WE SAY OR

CONGRESS HAS DECLARED THAT

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND

A WOMAN.

OUR OWN CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN

INTERPRETED TO SAY THAT'S

UNFAIR AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND NOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

SHOULDN'T BE TELLING US

OTHERWISE AND CREATING THE

BURDEN ON THE STATE TO TREAT

THEM DIFFERENTLY FOR PURPOSES

OF JOINTLY ADMINISTERED

PROGRAMS, HEALTH CARE, AND

VETERANS.

AND IT'S UNFAIR TO THE PEOPLE

IN THE STATE WHO HAD MARRIED,

DONE EVERYTHING THEY'RE

SUPPOSED TO AND NOW THEY DON'T

HAVE THE SAME BENEFITS THAT

OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES HAVE IN

MASSACHUSETTS.

>> ABOUT HALF OF THE OTHER

STATES ARE NOW RECOGNIZING

SAME SEX MARRIAGE AS LEGAL.

HOW ARE THEY HANDLING THIS?

>> REMEMBER, THEY'RE FAR

BEHIND US.

I THINK WHEN THEY UNDERSTAND

WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE, THEY

WILL HAVE THE SAME ISSUES WE

DO.

THIS ISN'T A HUGE

PHILOSOPHICAL BAND WAGON, IT

JUST THIS SEEMS TO BE AN

UNFAIR SITUATION ONCE YOU

REALIZE YOU HAVE A SYSTEM IN A

TATE WHERE YOU RECOGNIZE WHO

IS MARRIED AND WHO ISN'T,

YOU'RE CREATING AN UNNECESSARY

BURDEN.

THEY CAN'T JOIN IN OUR SUIT

BECAUSE IT'S JUST IN

MASSACHUSETTS.

BUT I WOULD GUESS THAT THEY

WILL RECOGNIZE THEY IN THOSE

STATES HAVE THE SAME INTERESTS

THAT WE DO IN SAYING DOMA

SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO US.

WE HAVE DECIDED THAT SAME SEX

COUPLES CAN MARRY HERE AND

THAT SHOULD DEFINE WHAT A

MARRIAGE IS, NOT WHAT CONGRESS

IN 1996 SAID A MARRIAGE SHOULD

BE.

>> GOING BACK TO A MINUTE AGO,

WHAT MOTIVATED YOU TO FILE

THIS SUIT?

IS IT SOMETHING YOU HAVE BEEN

STEWING ON OR WAS IT PEOPLE

COMING TO YOU AND SAYING THIS

ISN'T RIGHT?

>> WHEN I RAN FOR ATTORNEY

GENERAL I SPEND A LOT OF TIME

BEFORE ELECTION TALKING TO

FOLKS AROUND THE STATE, WHAT

SHOULD THE STATES BE DOING,

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES, THE FOLKS

FROM GLAD AND OTHERS BROUGHT

TO MY ATTENTION THAT THEY WERE

CONSIDERING A SUIT, AND THAT

WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT IT ALSO.

WE HAVE CONSIDERED IT FOR A

WHILE, GLAD FILED SUIT IN

MARCH.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE

HAD A SOUND LEGAL THEORY AND

THAT THE FACTS MADE SENSE.

AND I FELT AFTER ALL WE'VE

DONE IN THE LAST TWO AND A

HALF YEARS IN LOOKING AT

MASSACHUSETTS RECORD NOW FIVE

YEARS OUT AFTER SAME SEX

MARRIAGE HAS BEEN ALLOWED THE

SKY HAS NOT FALLEN IN FACT

IT'S BEEN BENEFICIAL FOR

MASSACHUSETTS.

IT WAS TIME TO SAY WAIT A

MINUTE, THIS IS A STATUTE THAT

DOES SERVES NO PURPOSE AND

IT'S A BURDEN TO US.

SO IT SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED.

>> BUT YOU WONDER, HOW IS THIS

ALL GOING TO SHAKE DOWN, EVEN

PRESIDENT OBAMA DOES NOT

SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

HE HAS SAID THAT HE'S

SUPPORTIVE OF RIGHTS TO BE

TOGETHER AND RECOGNIZE CIVIL

UNIONS, BUT HE DOES NOT

SUPPORT IT.

SO I POSE HE WOULD BE IN

SUPPORT OF DOMA.

>> WELL, HE HAS SAID PUBLICLY

THAT HE HOPES DOMA WILL BE

REPEALED AND HE BELIEVES THAT

IT INVADES STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

SO IN THAT SENSE I THINK HE IS

ON BOARD WITH THIS CONCEPT.

HE AS I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW,

THEY HAVE TO, DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE HAS TO DEFEND THE

LAWSUIT, AT LEAST AT A MINIMAL

LEVEL. AND WE HAVEARY --

HAVE LATERED JUSTICE THAT

WE'RE FILING THIS SUIT.

I UNDER THAT SOCIAL ISSUES

LIKE THIS DON'T HAPPEN

OVERNIGHT, BUT WE HAVE A GREAT

TRACK RECORD IN MASSACHUSETTS.

THE ISSUES ARE JOINED HERE,

THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE OPEN

FOR DETERMINATION AND WE FELT

THE TIME WAS RIGHT TO RAISE

THESE ISSUES, AT LEAST TO OUR

MASSACHUSETTS TO A THIS IS

JUST AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON OUR

STATE.

>> DO YOU THINK CONGRESS WILL

GO BACK AT IT?

BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY

RAILROADED THROUGH, IT WAS

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY

BUT A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

WILL THEY READDRESS IT?

>> THERE'S SO MUCH IN FRONT OF

CONGRESS RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT

FRONT BURNER FOR THEM.

I DON'T NOAH THE VOTE TOTAL

WOULD BE LIKE.

I KNOW THERE SHOULD BE A MOVE

AFOOT TO REPEAL IT.

BUT ONCE THE STATUTE HAS

PASSED THERE'S A LOT OF

INERTIA TO OVERCOME.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR

THAT, AND MAYBE WE CAN SPUR

THAT DEBATE ON REPEAL.

BUT OTHERWISE WE'LL GET SOME

DECISION FROM THE COURT ON

WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR

FEDERAL STATUTE SHOULD APPLY

TO A STATE THAT HAS ALREADY

DETERMINED THAT SAME SEX

MARRIAGE MAKES SENSE.

>> IS THIS GOING TO BE ONE OF

THOSE THINGS THAT PLODS

THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM OR DO

YOU EXPECT A FAIRLY QUICK

RESPONSE?

>> HARD TO KNOW.

THAT IS ONE THING THAT IS

UNPREDICTABLE, AS TO HOW

QUICKLY OR SLOWLY IT WILL

MOVE.

>> YOU JUST FILED IT YESTERDAY,

SO NO RESPONSE YET.

ALL RIGHT, ATTORNEY GENERAL

MARTHA COAKLEYING THANK YOU

FOR COMING.