Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases

Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry & Sandy Stier.

Photo from the American Foundation for Equal Rights

 

After weeks of silence on the matter the U.S. Supreme Court has finally announced that it will take up two cases concerning same-sex marriage: Windsor v. United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Both cases are very significant, as Windsor is a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act which limits federal marriage benefits to heterosexual married couples, while Perry--a challenge to the California state constitution's ban on same-sex marriage--may have nationwide implications for same-sex marriage. Arguments will begin in March of 2013 while a decision is expected in late June.

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

Image courtesy of Daily Kos

A second federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), a law which denies hundreds of federal marital benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional. According to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, the law "treats gay men and lesbians differently on the basis of their sexual orientation" and the "imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority on a minority cannot provide a justification" for it. Although defenders of the law, appointed by House Republican leaders, claimed that DOMA was justified by "tradition", Judge White noted that the same reasoning was used to defend bans on interracial marriages decades ago. Furthermore, he wrote, excluding same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage "does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriage." The Republican-dominated House of Representatives announced today that they will appeal the decision.

SPLC Suit Challenges DOMA

"Tracy Cooper-Harris served for 12 years in the U.S. Army and received multiple commendations.  But because she's in a marriage with a person of the same sex, the government refuses to grant her the same disability benefits as heterosexual veterans.

In a federal lawsuit filed today, the SPLC challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as well as the law that governs the Department of Veterans Affairs policy...

... The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charges that DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.  It also challenges the VA's definition of "spouse" as discriminatory."

Read the SPLC's full article here.

American Bar Association Supports Repeal of DOMA

The American Bar Association (ABA) has now officially gone on record in support of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Thomas Susman, the director of  the ABA’s Governmental Affairs Office, sent a letter to the senate judiciary committee in which he voiced the ABA's support for repealing the law on the grounds that it is "discriminatory" and causes "legal confusion and complications."

Special thanks to OUTlaw President Erika Scibelli for finding the article.

Progress on Repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act"

Sen. Patrick Leahy

In July, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a hearing on a possible repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Under the act, passed in 1996, a marriage was legally defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife", and no State may be required to recognize as a marriage any same-sex relationship recognized as a marriage in another State. Furthermore, federal marriage benefits which are granted to heterosexual married couples may not be granted to their same-sex counterparts. On October 14th, 2011, Sen. Leahy issued a press release stating that he intends to schedule Committee consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal and replace DOMA. The text of the bill is as follows:

‘(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

‘(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.’

Archbishop Timothy Dolan: Gay Marriage Could Cause "National Conflict"

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York has sent a letter to President Obama warning him that same-sex marriage, and particularly his administration's decision to end its legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, could "precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions." Archbishop Dolan wrote that he and other Bishops have a "growing sense of urgency about recent actions taken" by the Obama Administration that "both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage." He then goes on to criticize those who frame same-sex marriage in the context of a civil rights struggle, saying that it is "especially wrong and unfair to equate opposition to redefining marriage with either intentional or willfully ignorant racial discrimination." This is is not the first time that Archbishop Dolan has made controversial statements regarding gay rights. In an April 2009 interview with The New York Post, Dolan defended his opposition to gay marriage by saying "hard-wired into us is a dictionary, and the dictionary defines marriage as between one man, one woman for life, please God, leading to the procreation of human life." In a March 2011 interview on 60 Minutes he said that gay marriage is akin to marrying one's biological mother. In June 2011, Dolan compared the legalization of gay marriage in New York to living in a totalitarian state such as North Korea.

DOJ's letter to Congress regarding DOMA

GLAD has posted a link to Attorney General Eric Holder's letter to Congress regarding DOMA. AG Holder sets forth the reasons why sexual orientation, as a class, should be inherently suspect and reviewed under heightened scrutiny. Read the whole letter here.

DOJ won't defend DOMA

Per Obama's instruction, the Department of Justice will not defend DOMA. The Advocate's Michelle Garcia explains in further detail.

DOMA Decision and D.C

• For those of you interested in reading the DOMA decision before jumping back into your casebooks, you can read it here at the GLAD website. GLAD has also posted an article about the plaintiffs' reactions.
• On Friday, the Washington D.C Court of Appeals struck down an initiative to put same-sex marriage on the ballot for popular vote. Below is a brief article from the AP:

WASHINGTON — D.C.'s highest court has ruled against opponents of the city's same-sex marriage law, saying they cannot ask voters to overturn it.

Opponents had wanted to challenge a law that took effect in Washington in March allowing same-sex couples to marry. They attempted to get approval to put an initiative on the ballot asking city voters to define marriage in the city as between one man and one woman. But city officials balked, saying a district human rights law barred initiatives that would authorize discrimination.

On Thursday, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled 5-4 that officials had the authority to keep the measure off the ballot and acted appropriately.

BREAKING: U.S District Court holds DOMA "violates principles of equal protection."

GLAD just Tweeted that the U.S District Court has held that DOMA "violates... principles of equal protection". The decision hasn't been posted yet, but check glad.org for developing details. In the meantime, you can read up on the history of the case and learn more about the plaintiffs involved.

DOMA challenge heard in Federal District Court in Boston yesterday

This note was posted on GLAD's Facebook page today:

An Argument for Equality: Recapping DOMA Hearing Day

Today at 4:04pm

It was sunny and warm as we headed to the Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse on Boston’s waterfront. Eight married couples, three widowers, and as many attorneys marched into the courtroom of Federal District Judge Joseph L. Tauro. The plaintiffs – all harmed by DOMA in various ways – sat in the jury box, and in an overflow courtroom next door, spectators could see them on two large flat-screen TVs.

In the main courtroom, we squished together on the benches. There was a lot of buzz as reporters and spectators waited for Judge Tauro’s entrance at 10:30. The 78-year-old jurist (whose father had been the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) entered with his robes open at the front. He greeted us with a bright “good morning” and chided the audience for its meek response, which got a laugh.

But we were soon down to serious business. Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and the woman who argued and won the historic Goodridge case, was on her feet.

“This is a classic equal protection issue. The Constitution applies to gay and lesbian citizens, and married ones, too,” Mary told the Court. “What governmental purpose does the US have as an employer in treating some of its married employees, retirees and surviving annuitants differently from other married persons, such that Nancy Gill pays for a self and family plan like some of her married colleagues, but the plan doesn’t cover her own spouse?”

Mary presented a three-pronged legal argument: 1) by singling out only the marriages of same-sex couples, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; 2) DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into marriage law, which for 230 years has been legislated by states; and 3) by denying federal protections to families, DOMA burdens the marriages of same-sex couples and their right to maintain family integrity.

Judge Tauro was attentive, thoughtful, and fully engaged. He questioned Mary about rational basis vs. heightened scrutiny, but never caught her unprepared.

Then it was the federal government’s turn. W. Scott Simpson of the Department of Justice started and ended his argument by emphasizing the Obama administration’s opposition to DOMA, but said their policy position “does not affect the statutes’ constitutionality.” A fire alarm briefly interrupted his argument. On the return of everyone to the courtroom, Mr. Simpson said that “individual states may experiment in the area of marriage” and that DOMA does not stop them from doing that. No one in the room envied him having to make what seemed a fairly strained argument.

We don’t know when to expect a decision, and with our terrible office record of prognostication, I wouldn’t even guess. But we all left the courthouse feeling pretty good, pretty strong, and pretty hopeful. Visit our website for a round up of news coverage, and stay tuned to www.glad.org/doma for more news.

Plaintiffs Marcelle Letourneau and Nancy Gill with Mary Bonauto at the press conference.

GLAD's DOMA challenge in Federal District Court in Boston on May 6th

Big news from GLAD!!!

"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 GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) in March 2009."

Continue to GLAD's full article here.