Married Same-Sex Couples Sue US For Federal Benefits

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Married Same-Sex Couples Sue US For Federal Benefits stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DENISE LAVOIE | 03/ 3/09 12:08 AM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

BOSTON — Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she's not allowed to check the "married filing jointly" box.

That's because Ritchie and her spouse, Kathleen Bush, are a gay couple, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes them ineligible to file joint tax returns.

Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance. Plaintiffs also include Dean Hara, the widower of former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of the House of Representatives.

In Ritchie's case, she and her spouse say they have paid nearly $15,000 more in taxes than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.

"It saddens us because we love our country," Ritchie said. "We are taxpayers. We live just like anyone else in our community. We do everything just like every other family, like every other married couple, and we are treated like less than that."

The lawsuit was being filed Tuesday in federal court in Boston by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the anti-discrimination group that brought a successful legal challenge leading to Massachusetts becoming the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage in 2004.

Only Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage. Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions.

Californians voted in November to overturn a court ruling that allowed gay marriage, but the state still offers domestic partnerships that guarantee the same rights as marriage. Hawaii is considering a bill that will allow same-sex civil unions.

Story continues below
advertisement

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The new lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples.

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal DOMA and reverse the Department of Defense policy that prevents openly gay people from serving in the military.

Mary Bonauto, GLAD's Civil Rights Project director, said the lawsuit is the first major challenge to the section of the law that denies same-sex couples access to more than 1,000 federal programs and legal protections in which marriage is a factor.

All the plaintiffs are from Massachusetts and have marriages that are recognized by the state. They include a U.S. Postal Service employee who wasn't allowed to add her spouse to her health insurance plan; a Social Security Administration retiree who was denied health insurance for his spouse; three widowers who were denied death benefits for funeral expenses; and a man who has been denied a passport bearing his married name.

"This law is an absolute intrusion into an area that states have governed for centuries _ marriage," Bonauto said.

In Hara's case, he was denied any portion of Studds' $114,000 pension after the Democratic congressman died in 2006. The two married in 2004 after being together for 14 years.

"I am not being treated the same as any other surviving spouse of any other federal employee or public servant who has served this country for 27 years, when I have been legally married," Hara said.

Defendants in the lawsuit are the United States of America and several federal agencies, which are being represented by the U.S. Department of Justice.

"Obviously, we are going to take a look at it and make a determination as to how the government would ultimately respond after we review it," DOJ spokesman Charles Miller said.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, said the lawsuit is a "plausible challenge" to DOMA.

"It's a question of whether Congress oversteps its bounds and engages in irrational discrimination when it draws a line in terms of concrete benefits for individuals who are otherwise eligible simply because the marriages they have entered involve same-sex couples rather than opposite-sex couples," he said.

Opponents of same-sex marriage say those who challenge DOMA are trying to impose gay marriage on the rest of the country.

"Massachusetts has made benefits available on a state level, but Massachusetts can't force the federal government's hand or the other states to accept same-sex marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that says it's dedicated to advancing religious freedom and the traditional family.

BOSTON — Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she's not allowed to c...
BOSTON — Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she's not allowed to c...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
203
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
photo

As a singleton, I could care less about the "benefits" for marrieds that, essentially, I am paying for. The whole system needs to be revamped!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 03/16/2009

What's the beef? I thought paying more taxes was Patriotic?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 AM on 03/14/2009

If they really love America then quit tying up the court system and wasting tax dollars on stupid suits like this one. File seperately and call it a day. They were well aware of the law before they got married so why complain now. I am not anti gay, I just think that there is a time and place for everything. Now is not the time to be wasting tax payers money. The government is doing enough of that for all of us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 AM on 03/13/2009
photo

It's never a waste to fight for civil rights, but being a heterosexual male puts you in a comfortable position and its easy to brush other people's problems off when you don't have to deal with them. You said you're not anti-gay, but I don't get the impression you care either. If you have gay friends, I think they are either blind or they need a reality check.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 03/21/2009

Very ,very sad that HUMAN BEINGS are having to beg their GOVERNMENT for equal rights.

The U.S. citizen-bigotry is inexcusable but understandable, as most of us, even us Gays and Lesbians have had the 'gays are evil' pounded into our brains since childhood. But for our very own government to allow this is just not going to fly anymore.

Keep fighting the good fight, gals.

In the end, we will win.

God Bless.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 03/12/2009
- LeftRight I'm a Fan of LeftRight 106 fans permalink
photo

I think that a better choice for their lawsuit might be the argument presented in Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution. It states:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This has been taken to mean that a contract signed in VA is still valid if both parties move to MD. Since a marriage license is a contract between the state and any two people, that contract still holds valid in ANY OTHER STATE!! The DOMA is Unconstitutional in that respect!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 03/04/2009
- bannorhill I'm a Fan of bannorhill 29 fans permalink

The full faith and credit clause does not give people extra privileges when the move from one state to another. In the 1970's the drinking age in New Jersey was 18 and in Pennsylvania it was 21. If a 19 year old moved from New Jersey to Pennsylvania he did not get to take his privilege to drink with him. He was subject to the same rules as any other 19 year old in Pennsylvania. Did Pennsylvania have to treat him as special because he had a prior privilege to drink? No. DOMA follows that logic and precedence.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 PM on 03/04/2009
- LeftRight I'm a Fan of LeftRight 106 fans permalink
photo

I didn't say that it applied to extra rights (though I would argue about the drinking age being a right...) I said that it applied to CONTRACTS, which is what a marriage license is!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:15 PM on 03/04/2009

I hope this argument is used. It would have a lot of unintended consequences, such as:

A person with a concealed carry permit from Texas could carry his gun in New York. Concealed carry is also a contract between a person and an entity (the state).

People who live in a state which allows medial marijuana would be allowed to light up when visiting another state.

It sure would be an interesting country. Everyone would become a resident of the state with the best laws in their mind and when the visited another state the person could obey their home states laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 03/05/2009
- LeftRight I'm a Fan of LeftRight 106 fans permalink
photo

It wouldn't matter more than a small percentage of the time, since you are a resident of the state in which you LIVE (and you must be able to prove that one!) and how many people really travel around that much??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 03/06/2009

Arg. Why, why, why do people insist on this "marriage is a contract" nonsense? Where's the offer? Acceptance? Consideration? How exactly would you breach that contract? Anybody? I'm really asking.

Everyone (same-sex marriage advocates included) is misusing the term. Marriage in the constitutional sense is a bundle of rights, not a contract with the state, or with your partner, or anyone else. And the question presented by the instant lawsuit is whether the federal government can deny rights to one group of people while granting them for a similarly situated group. Nothing to do with contracts. At. All.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 03/11/2009

How is it "imposing gay marriage on the rest of the country"?? To do that wouldn't you have to force someone who is straight to marry someone of the same sex? No one is doing that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 03/03/2009
- mercury613 I'm a Fan of mercury613 39 fans permalink
photo

You're thinking far too logically.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:18 PM on 03/03/2009
photo

Lawsuits for SSM Tax-Equality, re: tax filing, tax deductible benefits, Social Security Benefits, & Health Premiums, most likely will be a losing battle unless proponents can show historical discrimination, besides sexual orientation. i.e:

Historically, in a marriage, there was (and still is) a head of household (HOH) and a housekeeper. The HOH was the sole or majority wage earner; providing the needs of the entire family. His spouse was (is) the housekeeper with little to no income. And even if the wife worked the same job as her husband, as a woman, she was paid less. To alleviate the financial burdens of providing for a spouse and dependents, laws were passed granting tax-deductions to the HOH. Social Security Benefits were implemented to supplement income of a surviving spouse upon the lost of HOH’s income. Even when men & women roles switched, the law still applied to whomever was HOH.

Now let’s apply the history of SSM-Unions to the tax laws: Proponents will have to demonstrate a history of a single wage earner being burdened and discriminated by the tax laws for household expenses for the care of children and a partner in daily routine. If IRS statistics show majority SSM are two wage earners in top tax-brackets and with no dependents, then there’s no history of financial burdens. And those w children most likely are receiving child support from a former spouse.

Don’t get mad, but consider how you'll address your opponents. The floor yields to:

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 03/03/2009

That is stupid. They still pay more in taxes, period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 PM on 03/03/2009
photo

One of the plaintiffs is suing because he gets less in social security payments than his deceased husband did. In a heterosexual marriage with the equivalent circumstances, the survivor is entitled to the higher payment of the deceased spouse. So there is this sort of argument being made about Federal financial discrimination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 PM on 03/06/2009
- Papago12 I'm a Fan of Papago12 2 fans permalink

My partner and I recently rec'd a Domestic Partnership from the City of Phoenix which is a step in the right direction. We have been together for 18 years....a monogamous, that means no cheating, no sleeping around and no sex with outside partners.

Maybe we can add some stability to Marriage, it certainly needs it, with over 50% divorce rate, I have 2 sets of friends that were married last year and they are both divorced within 6 months. Lesson learned...never buy a wedding gify until after the 1st complete year of marriage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 03/03/2009
- Niasia I'm a Fan of Niasia 22 fans permalink

I say if two people want to be married then hey let them be married. Two PEOPLE! That is all they are asking for. I myself am not gay and personally do not like to be in company with the extremes of homosexuality but I am all for them having rights and so forth. I do not think it will make children gay or any other craziness the Christians can come up with! Enough already people please just let them have their rights! I just want to know how it will affect the people against it. I would like to know...and saying "it is just not right" is not sufficient. I love how the christians can cherry pick the laws from their good book to follow!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 PM on 03/03/2009

"I myself am not gay and personally do not like to be in company with the extremes of homosexuality but I am all for them having rights and so forth."

Well, Niasia, I am 'one of them' who doesn't like to be in the company with the extremes of HETEROSEXUALITY. But we're all here, ain't we?

You talk of 'us' as if we are differnt from you. We are not.

Our skin color or our eye color may differ, but we are EXACTLY the same.

Except that WE don't write & pass laws AGAINST you.

But thanks for thinking 'we' should be allowed what 'you' are allowed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 03/12/2009
photo

It's way past time to demand equality for ALL!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 03/03/2009
- lylo I'm a Fan of lylo 5 fans permalink

As a side note:
No heterosexual is allowed to say marriage is sacred until The Bachelor is off the air.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 03/03/2009
- mercury613 I'm a Fan of mercury613 39 fans permalink
photo

And until Britney Spears, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Lisa-Marie Presley, and Billy Bob Thornton are bared from marrying.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 03/03/2009
- mercury613 I'm a Fan of mercury613 39 fans permalink
photo

Make that "barred". I can, in fact, spell -- all evidence to the contrary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 PM on 03/03/2009
- Sepulchre I'm a Fan of Sepulchre 102 fans permalink
photo

Or the divorce rate goes down substantially.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 03/03/2009
- MrsJackson I'm a Fan of MrsJackson 7 fans permalink
photo

Co-sign!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 03/03/2009

You HAVE seen the LATEST 'entry' in this genre, have you not? It's about 12 (or so -- I forget the exact number) men in their TWENTIES competing for the affections of a woman who is in her FORTIES. It's on TV Land and is called "The Cougar".

So let's call this a co-sign and bonus.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 PM on 03/03/2009
- lylo I'm a Fan of lylo 5 fans permalink

1. The government is not allowed to establish a religion.
I've always assumed that this meant that the government wasn't allowed to make any religion more influential than others by encouraging its practice or making any religion the standard of this country. See "Treaty of Tripoli"
2. Marriage is a government institution.
Obviously. Otherwise I couldn't go to the court and be married by a judge. Married people get all sorts of benefits from the federal government. Anyway, no argument: The government recognizes marriage.
3. Christianity is not okay with same gender marriage.
Again. Obvious. Talk to a Christian, and they'll come up with all sorts of reasons why it's bad.
4. There have been cultures friendly to same gender unions.
Historically, this is the case. Not all religions are so against it as Christianity.
5. The government makes same gender marriages illegal, therefore establishing Protestant Christianity as its standard religion.
Seriously. What other religious laws are we going to start applying to marriage? Many religions have many different views on marriage, including discouraging marriage outside of one's social caste, religion, and region. Why are none of these various things included in our marriage laws?
And consider if it were some other religion that this was happening with, like Islam. Would you be pleased if Islamic wedding laws were imposed on you?!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 03/03/2009
- bannorhill I'm a Fan of bannorhill 29 fans permalink

5. does not follow necessarily from the other arguments. The United Church of Christ opposed Prop 8. If Prop 8 had failed to pass does that mean California would have established The UCC as its standard religion? Would it have imposed those religious standards? What would make one religious standard OK and another not.

Just because a religion agrees with a law does not make it unconstitutional. If it did we would not have laws based on "Thou shall not murder" or "thou shall not steal". The definition of marriage in Prop 8 is a time honored cultural standard. Some religions agree with it. Others do not. That does not mean it establishes a religion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 03/03/2009

Your argument does not follow. The only reasons, besides outright homophobia, that have been given against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. There are many, many reasons that murder and theft are against the law.

It is simple. Until someone can give a meaningful argument that does not have religious beliefs at the core of it, then not allowing gay marriage is a simple act of discrimination against a minority, and goes against the the separation of church and state.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 PM on 03/03/2009

Slavery was a "time honored cultural standard" for a long time too. Doesn't make it right.

I think Rep. John Lewis, longtime ally and close associate of Martin Luther King Jr., said it best:

"I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism."

It's time to let gay couples into the club too, regardless of objections, because it's the right thing to do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 PM on 03/03/2009
- LeftRight I'm a Fan of LeftRight 106 fans permalink
photo

When several religions are in favor of gay marriage (or at least accepting of them) and others are not, and the state bans gay marriage for no real reason other than religious ones, then yes, it DOES follow that the law is unconstitutional!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 AM on 03/04/2009
photo

This is absolutely the way to go. They are suing for BENEFITS, not the word "marriage" itself.

This could result in federally recognized civil unions for now, which is all the country is really ready for.

Let's see the bigots come out of the woodwork now not to talk about the word "marriage" but to espouse their anti-gay bigotry itself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 03/03/2009
- boden I'm a Fan of boden 3 fans permalink

"Opponents of same-sex marriage say those who challenge DOMA are trying to impose gay marriage on the rest of the country.'

If DOMA is reversed does that mean I have to marry a guy? My wife is not gonna be happy about this.

Do I have to get skinny jeans?

What about small dogs?

(sarcasm)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 03/03/2009
- BobSF94117 I'm a Fan of BobSF94117 9 fans permalink

I seriously doubt that small dogs will have to wear jeans, skinny or otherwise.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 03/03/2009
- slaxx I'm a Fan of slaxx 37 fans permalink
photo

you go girls (and boys).

civil marriage is nothing more than a contract. the state and fedreal governments for some reason give people special rights for having one of these contracts.

i think they should've just filed jointly and let the IRS figure it out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 03/03/2009
photo

Actually a same sex married would probably get arrested, or at least fined heavily, for filing US tax forms jointly under current law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 03/06/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect