Martha Coakley puts advocacy issues and the needs of the Commonwealth above and beyond party politics. As the Associated Press pointed out Coakley, campaigning for a seat left open by a Democratic heavy-weight, stands so firmly for democratic ideals that she will lead the campaign to advance them even if it means brining suit against the Democratic administration to do so.
In the July filing, Massachusetts argues married same-sex couples have a right to federal benefits based on marital status. And with noble intent. What is the virtue beyond symbolic significance of marital status gained by same-sex couples if it is not substantiated with the benefits and privileges, recognized nationally, of heterosexual couples?
Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.
Coakley as a different type of leader is an actual fact, not a theoretical yield so many candidates promise during campaigns. Beyond that of the stream-line democrat or worse, a party parrot, Coakley’s leadership is at the forefront of a revitalized movement to advance civil liberties, rights, and democratic ideals.
Her record of advocacy and proven dedication go beyond championing, to challenging the highest power for advocacy- that brand of unique leadership is the sort that Sen. Kennedy would be proud to have in his successor.
Brava! Martha Coakley, a candidate who puts actions to words-and has been doing it for over two decades!
if I was on death row and had been wrongly sentenced with the death penalty I’m certain she would not come to my aid but to the contrary, support others attempts to deny my appeal on the basis of a legal question because somehow, in Coakley world, it is the state’s interest not to have to defend my appeal in Federal court.
Cheap, but I like it.