Liberty Counsel Files Brief in Support of Defense of Marriage Act in Massachusetts Case

NEWS RELEASE
Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776 or Media@LC.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 27, 2010

www.LC.org




Boston, MA - Liberty Counsel filed an Amicus Brief in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The brief states that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes and law is clearly constitutional.

Liberty Counsel included a number of expert testimonies on the importance of both a mother and a father in each child's life. Sociologist David Popenoe noted that "fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative, risk taking and independence. Mothers in their care-taking roles, in contrast, stress emotional security and personal safety." Popenoe continues, "While mothers provide an important flexibility and sympathy in their discipline, fathers provide ultimate predictability and consistency. Both dimensions are critical for an efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime."

Massachusetts argues that Congress has no authority to define marriage for the purpose of its programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and Cemetery Grant Programs. Instead, Congress may only define the program itself. The idea that the federal government can only define a program but cannot define the intended recipient of the program is absurd. In this case Massachusetts is effectively demanding that its laws on marriage are supreme and must trump the federal laws. This novel idea would overturn years of precedent on issues of state law versus federal law, where federal law has always prevailed on federal issues.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented:

"Natural marriage between one man and one woman forms the foundation of any civilized society. It is absurd to suggest that Massachusetts can force its distorted definition of marriage onto the federal government and then force the federal government to provide benefits. A state cannot change the intended recipients of benefits provided for and defined under federal law. This is like the tail wagging the dog."