[Thanks to Dale Carpenter for the link, and welcome to Conspirators! My summary of the Complaint can be found below in the UPDATE of this post. Check out (and bookmark) Law Dork, 2.0, as well as this follow-up post regarding the government's defense of the suit.]
The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the litigation group that brought Goodridge and marriage equality to Massachusetts, announced that it is today filing suit to challenge Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. (The comprehensive GLAD Web site can be found here.)
Section 3 of DOMA is the portion of DOMA that sets the federal definition of marriage:
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
The Bay Windows article — GLAD challenges federal DOMA — adds some more info, including the name – Gill, et al vs. Office of Personnel Management, et al, — and that the case is being brought “on behalf of eight couples and three widowers, all from Massachusetts. Among the plaintiffs is Dean Hara, widower of the late Congressman Gerry Studds.“ Additionally, Massachusetts Attorney General and possible Senate candidate Martha Coakley announced her support of the lawsuit:
Today’s lawsuit describes compelling stories of individuals in committed, loving, and lasting relationships, who have been deprived of rights and protections that they rightfully deserve. They are simply seeking the legal protections given to all other married persons. Massachusetts sees no reason to view these couples in any other way than as married couples, and we hope that this lawsuit results in a similar outlook at the federal level.
The timing of this suit, two days before the California Supreme Court is to hear arguments in its case challenging Proposition 8, is curious. I’m not quite sure a bi-coastal litigation front is ideal, but GLAD has been smart about its litigation, so I look forward to hearing the thoughts on “why now?”
More to follow once I have a chance to review the Complaint.
[UPDATE: The lawsuit, obviously, is put together quite well. It lays out, in very plain terms, the federal benefits denied individuals married to someone of the same sex in Massachusetts, from spousal benefits for federal employees to tax treatment to Social Security to passports (interesting!). Complaint, at paras. 6-9.
It then seeks a declaration that such denials are a violation of the Constitution "by refusing to recognize lawful marriages." Compl., at para. 10.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, is a named defendant because she "is responsible for the administration and operation of the Passport Services Directorate." Compl., at para. 36. It's a small world that she will now be defending the legislation her husband signed into law and, specifically, the portion of DOMA she pledged to overturn when running for president.
A key part:
Throughout history and at least until 1996, the United States has consistently deferred to the sovereignty of the States when the marital status of an individual has been used as a marker of eligibility or access to some benefit, right, or responsibility identified by the federal government.
Compl., at para. 44.
Some powerful language is used when rebutting Congress's stated reasons necessitating the passage of DOMA, particularly the reason given that the bill "advances the government's interest in preserving scarce government resources":
As to the fourth claimed interest, while the public fisc is always a matter of concern, it is not a legitimate interest in the context of Congressionally provided protections and responsibilities for spouses and families. Congress has yet to identify a reason why gay and lesbian individuals who have met their obligations as taxpaying citizens and who are married to someone of the same sex must be denied protections available to persons who are married to someone of a different sex. Singling out same-sex couples who are married among all married persons is simply an expression of the intent to discriminate against gay people.
Compl., at paras. 52-58.
Then, the specific facts are laid out as to each of the plaintiffs. It's hard to read these without either crying or screaming. The language is legal, antiseptic, but the facts are unmovable statements of wrongdoing by the federal government. DENIED. DENIED. DENIED. Reporters need to familiarize themselves with these facts (as should Congress). Compl., at paras. 59-328.
The remainder of the Complaint consists of the specific allegations each of the couples or widowers makes against each of the relevant government agents or agencies, from the IRS to the Social Security Administration to the Department of State and so on.
I don't know how to explain it, other than to just say it. Reading that is painful. It hurts. I was working in the Clinton White House the summer that DOMA was being debated. It's hard -- but good -- to see how so much has changed that this could go from being an unfortunate reality to a seeming anomaly of discrimination.
The White House can't be happy about this. Its response to this lawsuit, if there is one, will be interesting.]
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who writes at Law Dork, contributes regularly to Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications. An extended biography can be found
“I don’t know how to explain it, other than to just say it. Reading that is painful. It hurts. I was working in the Clinton White House the summer that DOMA was being debated. It’s hard — but good — to see how so much has changed that this could go from being an unfortunate reality to a seeming anomaly of discrimination.”
Well you should explain it. How does a law reacting to a change in a foundational social institution “hurt” you?
A simple definition that has stood and is commonly understood “hurts” you?
And you keep throwing around “discrimination” as if you’re not a lawyer. As if the law discriminating in necessarily a bad thing.
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC