LGBTQ news and entertainment
Captain Steve M Hill and his husband Joshua Snyder discuss how the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from honoring legal marriages of same-sex couples, hurts their family.
More at freedomtomarry.org/military
Hill – who drew national support when he was booed during a Republican presidential debate after asking a question via video regarding repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) – recently returned from a deployment to the Middle East.
Another federal judge has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), finding that the law “should not be presumed to be constitutional, and should instead be subject to a heightened form of judicial scrutiny.”
The victory comes in the case of Edie Windsor, who was seeking a refund of the federal estate tax paid by the estate of her late wife. From the ruling:
The Court declares that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as applied to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is awarded judgment in the amount of $353,053.00, plus interest and costs allowed by law.
It’s another loss for Paul Clement and House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (“BLAG”), who had claimed that her homosexuality was a “choice.”
Windsor’s attorneys had argued that “DOMA violates the Equal Protection principles of the U.S. Constitution because it recognizes existing marriages of heterosexual couples, but not of same-sex couples, despite the fact that New York State treats all marriages the same.”
(source)
In what will without a doubt be a landmark decision, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston today ruled that key pieces of the Defense of Marriage Act, that 90s-era law prohibiting the federal government from extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples, violates the Constitution.
The case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, hinges on whether the government has a rational reason for discriminating against gay couples. The court clearly thinks not, because “moral disapproval” should not be the basis of laws.
The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns. The court didn’t rule on the law’s other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states.
Metro Weekly provides a portion of the ruling:
[M]any Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.
Here is a PDF of the decision.
(source)
From The Advocate: A federal judge in California has ruled a section of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a case brought by a group of public employees whose same-sex spouses were denied long-term care insurance.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled late Thursday that Section 3 of DOMA, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, violates the equal protection rights of the couples who sued both the federal government and the state’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).
In granting summary judgment to the public employees, Wilken ruled that DOMA and a provision in the federal tax code “are constitutionally invalid to the extent that they exclude Plaintiff same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners from enrollment in the CalPERS long-term care plan.”
On Wednesday a federal court struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional.
Today GOP House Speaker John Boehner ordered that ruling appealed.
In court papers, a group of congressional Republicans defending the federal gay marriage ban revealed they are appealing the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 9th Circuit will become the second federal appeals court to now consider the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 16-year-old law known as DOMA.
The Obama administration has sided with Golinski in the case, arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, have jumped in to defend the law, filing the notice of appeal on Friday. With cases unfolding in several federal courts, many experts predict the issue will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
On and on it goes kids. It’s clear which way history is headed. Clear.
In 50 years, those who want to keep inequality as the law of the land will look as strange and unseemly as the white supremacists and bigots of the last century do now regarding rights for African Americans.
The Obama Justice Department has concluded that laws banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and will no longer defend the statute in court, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders on Friday.
“The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans,” Holder wrote. “Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA.”
Read more at TalkingPointsMemo.com
This week’s historic approval of the Respect for Marriage Act (in effect a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act) by the Senate Judiciary Committee is intelligently examined by American Foundation for Equal Right’s Matt Baume in a special episode of Marriage News Watch.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ this morning in a 10-8 vote along party lines, advancing the bill.
It’s unknown if and when the full chamber might consider it.
Check out the video of Senator Franken fact-checking Senator Grassley: “I just believe you misstated the history of marriage. Marriage has not existed as a union between one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture. In many cultures, men have been able to marry many women and young girls. For centuries, women have been treated as cattle in marriage. Further, if the religious purpose for marriage is procreation, why would we sanction marriage between an 89 year-old widower and an 80 year-old widow? I just think we need to be accurate when we talk about the history of marriage, the history of man and woman, the history of our institutions.”
|
| Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont |
From MetroWeekly: Today, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced that his committee, which held a hearing on the Respect for Marriage Act earlier this year, will hold a mark-up session and vote on the bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next month.
In a statement announcing the news, Leahy said, “The march for equality continues, and now is the time to ensure equality for gay and lesbian Americans who are lawfully married.”
Of his plans on the bill, he said, “Next month, I will call up the Respect for Marriage Act for debate and a vote in the Judiciary Committee. The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents thousands of American families from being protected by laws that help secure other American families. This is part of the nation’s continuing fight for civil rights for all Americans.”
Research group the Williams Institute, together with the UCLA School of Law, submitted as part of their testimony to the recent “repeal DOMA” hearings research that demonstrates the very real impact DOMA has on married same-sex couples.
Listed below is just a short list of the many ways same-sex married couples are discriminated against by the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” While not a complete list, but it illustrates how many important civil rights are denied by the law.
As you can see, none of the rights listed below have anything to do with religious or church-based issues. These are all civil benefits extended by our civil government to married couples. In a country that espouses “all created equal”, clearly all married couples in this country are not enjoying the same rights and privileges.
Denied Equal Social Security Survivor or Spousal Benefits — Unlike opposite-sex couples, same-sex spouses cannot continue to claim their partner’s higher rate of benefits after their spouse has died. This can result in an average loss of $5,700 per year. This is just one way in which DOMA impacts social security and survival benefits.
Denied Equal Treatment for Bi-National Couples — There are nearly 26,000 same-sex couples in the United States who are bi-national and could be forced to separate because they cannot participate in green-card and accelerated citizenship mechanisms.
Denied Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Benefits — Estimates suggest that 43,000 employees would qualify for medical leave pay but are denied it because FMLA does not cover leave to care for a same-sex partner.
Denied Benefits for Spouses of Federal Employees — The Williams Institute estimates there are around 30,200 federal employees with a same-sex partner who, not being federal employees themselves, are denied spousal benefits because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages. This impacts health care coverage and work/injury compensation to name but a few.
Denied Veteran Partner Benefits — Around 68,000 veterans have same-sex partners that are barred from pension benefits, educational assistance and vocational training, as well as many other benefits.
Denied Equal Treatment in Taxation of Employee Health Benefits — If a company has implemented a health benefit scheme that covers same-sex partners, benefits that are taxed under federal law mean an unfair burden on both employees and employers. The Williams Institute suggests this disparity may run to over $1,000 a year.
Denied Equal Treatment in Inheritance Tax — Same-sex spouses are treated as legal strangers by the federal government and are therefore subject to different rules governing inheritance tax, so for couples that exceed the non-taxable transfer of assets there is an additional tax burden that the institute calculates could amount to, on average, as much as $4 million.
Read more at Care2.org