U.S. House Lawyers File To Intervene In Massachusetts DOMA Appeal

GLAD reports via press release:

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives filed a motion to intervene in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management the multi-plaintiff challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) with co-counsel Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester and Jenner & Block in March 2009.

On July 8, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional with respect to claims brought by the seven married same-sex couples and three widowers represented in the case. The case is now on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“As always, we are prepared to address whatever comes our way,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and lead attorney in Gill. “We are eager to move forward and end the serious harms that are experienced not only by our plaintiffs and their families, but by same-sex married couples all over this country.”

Read the full motion (PDF).

GLAD Denounces RI Civil Unions Bill

Via press release from Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who are very unhappy with the religious exemption in Rhode Island's civil unions bill:

Everyone agrees that religious denominations should not be required to join any two people in any legal relationship – whether marriage or a civil union – that is contrary to their religious teachings. However, the religious exemption amendment goes much further in allowing religious charitable and educational organizations – such as social service providers, hospitals, and educational institutions – to treat legal civil unions, authorized under Rhode Island law, as invalid for any purpose.

Karen Loewy, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD, said “This unprecedented exemption means a civil union spouse could be denied the ability to make medical decisions for her spouse in a hospital; it means that a math teacher at a religiously-based school could not get the same health insurance for his legally recognized partner that all other teachers receive. This exemption actually diminishes nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations and employment that Rhode Island employers and institutions have successfully lived with since 1995. It just inflicts gratuitous harm on Rhode Island’s gay and lesbian families.”

House & Senate Get DOMA Repeal Bills

The Respect For Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, was introduced today in both the House and Senate. The Task Force reacts via press release:

“It is shocking that in 21st-century America, legally married same-sex couples are being singled out and selectively denied fundamental rights by their own federal government. This is an outrage. The Respect for Marriage Act does just that — it respects and protects the rights of legally married couples to live free from this government-sanctioned discrimination. Today’s introduction marks an important step toward recognizing our common humanity and ending an egregious injustice against thousands of loving, committed couples who simply want the protections, rights and responsibilities already afforded other married couples. We thank the many House and Senate members who recognize that DOMA has no place on the books and support its full, swift repeal. DOMA has only served to belittle our country’s deeply held values of freedom and fairness. It has only served to hurt families, not help. This must end now.”

Plaintiffs in one of the federal suits to overturn DOMA appeared at a DC press conference this morning.

Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau joined other married same-sex couples at two Capitol Hill press conferences today in support of a bill filed to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. They were accompanied by GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Boanauto, who is representing them and other Massachusetts couples and widowers in the DOMA Section 3 challenge Gill et al v. OPM. “Marcelle and I have been happily together for 30 years and happily married for five,” said Nancy Gill, a federal postal employee for 23 years. “We’re raising two kids. Unlike my married co-workers, I can’t put Marcelle on my health insurance because of DOMA. Our family should be treated the same as the families of our co-workers, and our children should be just as secure as theirs

While the Respect For Marriage Act has numerous cosponsors in both chambers, the bill is considered to have little chance of success.

GLAD To Speaker Boehner: Bring It On

Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) announced today that they are more than ready to take on Speaker John Boehner's special House counsel on DOMA. Via press release:

“It is now perfectly clear that U.S. House leaders plan to intervene in the pending cases,” said Mary L. Bonauto, co-lead attorney in GLAD’s two cases Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, and Pedersen et al. v. Office of Personnel Management. “We are ready to address any defense of DOMA’s double standard for how the federal government deals with legally married couples,” she added. [snip] "Even though these couples are married, pay their taxes, and play by the rules, DOMA has separated spouses, taken money from children’s college funds, and denied widows assistance at the worst time of people’s lives.” GLAD won a victory in Gill in July 2010 when Federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. Pedersen was filed by GLAD in November 2011; briefing is underway.

There are three other pending cases which challenge DOMA's constitutionality.

DOJ Notifies Court Of DOMA Withdrawal

Via press release from GLAD:

The Department of Justice followed Wednesday’s withdrawal from two DOMA cases in the Second Circuit, including GLAD’s Pedersen v. OPM by notifying the clerk of the First Circuit that they will also “cease to defend” the two consolidated DOMA cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. HHS. The DOJ has not sent a letter to the Congress declining to defend DOMA in toto in the Gill case, so its determination may only apply to the extent the court determines that heightened scrutiny is the proper standard of review for DOMA’s constitutionality. No matter what happens, the case will proceed with DOJ as the attorneys for the government defendants.

“It is increasingly clear to everyone what has been clear to gay and lesbian families for years - that DOMA’s denial of protections available to all other married families is discriminatory, harmful, and unjustifiable,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and lead attorney on both Gill and Pedersen. “DOJ’s acknowledgement of this is momentous. At the same time, we know this isn’t the end of the road.” In a letter to the court Assistant Attorney General Tony West writes that “the Department will cease its defense of Section 3” in cases including Gill and Massachusetts. DOJ also “notifies the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation of those cases,” and that “we will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United State throughout the litigation.”

DOMA AMICUS BRIEFS: Who's Who In Vile Anti-Gay American Hate Groups

GLAD has posted a round-up of the anti-gay groups who have filed DOMA amicus briefs in their case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.

Agudath Israel of America
American College of Pediatricians [FAKE]
Attorneys General of SC, UT, IN, MI, CO
Concerned Women for America
Congressman Lamar Smith
Eagle Forum
Family Research Council
Foundation for Moral Law
Robert George
George Goverman
Liberty Counsel
Massachusetts Family Institute
NARTH
National Legal Foundation
National Organization for Marriage
Pacific Justice Institute
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
National Association of Evangelicals

DOJ Files DOMA Defense

The Department of Justice yesterday filed its defense of the overturn of Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was ruled unconstitutional last July in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States.

A quote from the government's brief comes via Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:

DOMA is supported by rationales that constitute a sufficient rational basis for the law. For example, as explained below, it is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states. When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.

Rather tepid, eh? Richard Socarides of the newly-formed Equality Matters responds.

"There are some improvements in tone in the brief, but the bottom line is the government continues to oppose full equality for its gay citizens. And that is unacceptable. The administration claims that it has a duty to defend the laws that are on the books. We simply do not agree. At the very least, the Justice Department can and should acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional."

And from GLAD, who won the case, we get this response via press release.

The government’s appeal follows a decision issued on July 8, 2010 by federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro in favor of GLAD’s plaintiffs, seven married couples and three widowers, who have been denied access to federal programs because of DOMA. In that decision, Judge Tauro concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional. “We see nothing really new in this brief, which reiterates many of the same arguments the government made in the District Court,” said Mary L. Bonauto, who is leading the DOMA team for GLAD. “We’re prepared to meet these arguments head-on, and bring to an end the discrimination that is suffered by married same-sex couples like our plaintiffs and that DOJ has admitted is caused by DOMA.”

GLAD To Launch Second DOMA Suit

Tomorrow the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) will launch a DOMA lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of a Connecticut lesbian couple. Earlier this year, GLAD won a similar suit in Massachusetts in a ruling that the Obama administration is appealing. The New York Times reports:

Joanne Pedersen tried to add her spouse to her federal health insurance on Monday. She was rejected. Again. The problem is that while Ms. Pedersen is legally married to Ann Meitzen under Connecticut law, federal law does not recognize same-sex unions. So a health insurance matter that is all but automatic for most married people is not allowed for them under federal law. Ms. Pedersen and Ms. Meitzen plan to file a lawsuit Tuesday against the government in an effort to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples.

GLAD will be issuing a press release on the new lawsuit tomorrow.

HomoQuotable - Janson Wu

"We fully expect that the Obama administration will appeal the decision. It would be unusual if they didn't. Typically, when a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the government appeals it. To be honest, we think that would be good. The federal government wants to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples, and that's just not enough to stand constitutional scrutiny." - GLAD attorney Janson Wu, speaking to Raw Story about yesterday's DOMA decision.

BREAKING: Federal Court Rules Defense Of Marriage Act To Be Unconstitutional!!!

The U.S. District Court in Boston has ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Bay Windows reports:

In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage -- one man and one woman -- violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law. Both cases were argued, separately, in May, and the decision released today is a relatively quick turnaround, given that some judges take almost a year to decide cases.

I'll have more details and reactions to this historic decision here shortly. It's a great day to be a gay American! Suck it, Gov. Lingle!

GLAD Holds Presser After First Day Of Federal DOMA Challenge

You'll have to listen closely as the audio is somewhat overwhelmed by traffic noise, but it appears that things are going well.

TOMORROW: GLAD Challenges DOMA In Federal Court

Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) will represent eight married same-sex couples and three widowers tomorrow in their Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) challenge against the federal government. Via press release:

Represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the plaintiffs in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, all married in Massachusetts, have each been harmed by DOMA treating them as unmarried. Gill was filed on March 3, 2009, and has been called the case with the greatest potential for national impact by the National Law Journal.

“Every day DOMA is hurting couples and families – not just by denying them benefits and rights, but by denying that their marriages exist,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. “Under our Constitution’s equal protection guarantees, there is no justification for this.” Bonauto will be arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs before U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Judge Tauro will hear GLAD’s motion for summary judgment as well as the federal government’s motion to dismiss. The hearing will address the issue of whether DOMA Section 3 is constitutional six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Follow along on GLAD's DOMA blog.

DOMA Challenge Scheduled For May

Gay & Lesbian Advocate and Defenders (GLAD) announced today that their challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been scheduled to begin on May 6th. Via press release:

On Thursday, May 6, 2010, the Federal District Court in Boston will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in March 2009. The hearing will address the central issue of the case – is DOMA constitutional? –six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Arguing before U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers will be Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. Bonauto was the lead attorney in Goodridge. As a result of DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, plaintiffs in GLAD’s lawsuit have been harmed in various ways, including denial of survivor benefits on a deceased spouse’s pension; denial of health insurance coverage for a spouse on a federal family plan; denial of Social Security death and widower benefits; and the payment of extra federal income taxes due to the inability to file jointly as married.

More on the case here. Here's GLAD's 2009 video explaining their suit.