More

DOMA Lawsuits Filed By Gay Civil Rights Groups

LARRY NEUMEISTER and PAT EATON-ROBB   11/ 9/10 06:24 PM ET   AP

Doma Lawsuits

NEW YORK — Gay civil rights groups trying to build momentum for a possible Supreme Court showdown filed two lawsuits Tuesday that seek to strike down portions of a 1996 law that denies married same-sex couples federal benefits.

The lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Connecticut and New York and come just months after a federal judge in Boston struck down a key component of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The legal actions seek judicial declarations that the law enacted by Congress in 1996, when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional because it prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples. Since 2004, five states – Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts – and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.

In Hartford, Conn., the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders sued the federal government on behalf of a Connecticut widower and married couples from Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire. The other lawsuit was filed on behalf of a New York woman, Edith Schlain Windsor, who met her late spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, nearly a half century ago at a restaurant.

"No one should have to fight with the government after losing the person she's loved for more than four decades," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "Edie and Thea made the same lifelong commitment that other married couples make, and their marriage deserves the same dignity, respect and protection afforded other families."

Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the Connecticut lawsuit was filed to maintain the momentum the group gained with the success of its challenge against the law in Massachusetts.

In July, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in Boston ruled in two separate lawsuits that the Defense of Marriage Act forces the state to discriminate against its own citizens to qualify for federal funding. He also said it violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The Justice Department said in a statement that it had no response to the lawsuits, except that the government "is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."

The department said that, as a policy matter, President Barack Obama has made clear that he believes the law is "discriminatory and should be repealed" and was working with Congress to do so.

The filing of multiple lawsuits will likely result in rulings in different federal court districts. That could increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually consider the issue.

Also, as the various lawsuits proceed, rulings by higher courts would affect wider areas. For instance, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston covers includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.

One of the Connecticut litigants, Jerry Passaro, 45, of Milford, was denied survivor benefits after his husband, Tom Buckholz, died of lymphoma.

"It's very hurtful," Passaro said. "Tommy and I were a team for so many years and to have that false sense of security that you are getting married and will have the same entitlements that everyone else has, it's very, very unhealthy."

Raquel Ardin, of North Hartland, Vt., said she felt like she and her wife, Lynda DeForge, 54, were being treated like second-class citizens when DeForge was denied time off from the U.S. Postal Service under the Family and Medical Leave Act to take care of Ardin.

"I just don't think it's right," Ardin said. The couple married in 2009 and have been together 30 years.

Bradley Kleinerman, 47, and his husband, Flint Gehre, 44, of Avon, said they lose money every year on taxes by being forced to file as single or head of household. They also have to prepare a third federal return as a couple, so they can figure out the income figures to put on their joint state return.

___

Associated Press Writer Pat Eaton-Robb reported from Hartford.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
NEW YORK — Gay civil rights groups trying to build momentum for a possible Supreme Court showdown filed two lawsuits Tuesday that seek to strike down portions of a 1996 law that denies married s...
NEW YORK — Gay civil rights groups trying to build momentum for a possible Supreme Court showdown filed two lawsuits Tuesday that seek to strike down portions of a 1996 law that denies married s...
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 448
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
juzcuz 07:35 PM on 11/09/2010
I'm happy for Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts – and the District of Columbia, to be able to have their love & commitments recognized & acknowledged. And I'm sad that me in Oregon and 44 other states CAN'T have our love & commitments recognized because my 'neighbor' had the choice to vote & decide on my rights as a born lesbian.
All gays and lesbians in all 50  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bluntobject
Gandhi didn't like your attitude either!
02:10 AM on 11/22/2010
This is really good to hear....everything moving along swimmingly.
 
If it weren't for the remaining bigots from previous generations who are still alive and running everyone else in the ground, Gay Marriage would be the law of the land by now.
 
It will eventually anyway...the republican tea buggers and the religious right nutters are fighting a losing battle.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RM Greer
12:24 PM on 11/10/2010
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Citizen's of the United States are protected by many law's that protect the rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority. The only difference here, is that the smug majority refuses to accept that people that are gay, are a minority and and, therefore it is perfectly "legal" and by religious dogma, that these people are afforded no equal rights. As the gay rights movement began to gain steam, I attended meetings and workshops at the (what was then called) The Gay Center in San Diego. We were in a meeting when the moderator asked us how it felt to each of us to be singled out for derision. While I can't remember her name, a black woman said to the men, Imagine being a 3 time loser in this country. I'm a black, gay, woman in this society, three groups discriminated against in this society. I've never stopped working in some fashion for recognition of all peoples equal legal acceptance.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
01202009
11:52 AM on 11/10/2010
Good luck with that! The Supremes will give corporations all kinds of (illegal) rights, but not real people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HappyBalance
People BEFORE Profits
11:47 AM on 11/10/2010
The march to equality is under way. DOMA and DADT will fall. The Administration has failed, the Congress has failed but I believe the Courts will come through.
01:05 PM on 11/10/2010
don't count on it, I see a dark future for all minorities in our great land, the hate spewing right needs the poor and down trodden to scare the uninformed American public. .
photo
zeroesandones
just a regular guy
04:42 PM on 11/10/2010
i like your vision...
10:42 AM on 11/10/2010
Some years ago, my partner of 25 years passed away. Because gay spouses are not allowed the same legal protections as their straight counterparts, including the inheritance of property (specifically our home for all those 25 years), I had to pay "gift taxes" to retain my home. I could not afford the tens of thousands of dollars it cost me, but I had no choice but to pay. The laws should be changed so that no other person has to do what I did. The Democratic Party, which my partner and I supported for our adult lives should also stand for freedom and equality. It is heartbreaking at this point to see it do otherwise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HappyBalance
People BEFORE Profits
11:49 AM on 11/10/2010
I am sorry to hear what happened to you :(

Yes the Democrats have failed. This is why I am going 3rd party. I do think that we are very close to full equality for GLBT folks. That day will be a incredible sweet day. Already planning a huge party. Have a great day.
11:57 AM on 11/10/2010
Thanks. I think our hope lies in the courts. Politicians from neither party seem to have the courage to take a stand on this issue.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
01:08 PM on 11/10/2010
Most federal and state courts agree that laws designed to specifically discriminate against LGBT American citizens don't merit the same degree of constitutional scrutiny as laws designed to specifically discriminate against illegal aliens. In other words, gay citizens don't even have the same degree of constitutional protections afforded to illegal aliens.

Religious confederacies attack even the most basic levels of legislative or judicial toleration at the state level, and the federal government — whether Democrat or Republican — fights us every step of the way in federal courts.

Fundamental rights, which are supposed to be "inalienable," are routinely stripped from gays by bare majority votes.

And you think full equality is "very close"?

Okay, wow. I'll have whatever you're drinking.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
04:09 PM on 11/12/2010
That is so sad, kenhammlet. {{{{{hugs}}}}} This is my worry when I die...that my wife will have to go through all kinds of legal maneuvers that straight widows/widowers don't have to deal with. I married my wife in Canada in 2007 but the minute we crossed into the US, our marriage was not recognised. Every day we face BS and oppression that straights would not put up with for five minutes, let alone a lifetime!
photo
TYRANNASAURUS
UGH!....people don't taste good.
10:41 AM on 11/10/2010
It's about constitutional equal rights........ after that....... you can make it whatever you want.
06:45 AM on 11/10/2010
"...as a policy matter, President Barack Obama has made clear that he believes the law is 'discriminatory and should be repealed' and was working with Congress to do so."

And I'm working on becoming younger as I get older...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
Honey Badger Don't Care
11:01 AM on 11/10/2010
Can't work with a party that refuses to be bipartisan.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
02:06 PM on 11/10/2010
(AP) "The public panned it. Republicans obstructed it. Many Democrats fled from it. Even so, the session of Congress now drawing to a close was the most productive in nearly half a century.

Not since the explosive years of the civil rights movement and the hard-fought debut of government-supported health care for the elderly and poor have so many big things - love them or hate them - been done so quickly.

Gridlock? It may feel that way. But that's not the story of the 111th Congress - not the story history will remember..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/18/politics/main6968980.shtml

They got things done. They just didn't bother to do anything for gays.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
01:09 PM on 11/10/2010
My god, that was full of stars.
photo
ThinkTwiceWriteOnce
Jarndyce v. Jarndyce
06:31 AM on 11/10/2010
And to think it is possible for someone in VA (with some restrictions) to marry his/her first cousin. ewwwwwww (yeah, I know Victoria and Albert were first cousins, but still.....ewwwwwww...)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
Honey Badger Don't Care
11:02 AM on 11/10/2010
I believe in Alabama incest is still legal but gay marriage is not. Go figure.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
01:09 PM on 11/10/2010
First-cousin marriage is legal in about half the states.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
Honey Badger Don't Care
02:14 PM on 11/10/2010
Half the states? Really?
photo
Valksy
civis mundi sum
04:27 AM on 11/10/2010
Once again GLBTQ people are sent to the back of the bus and told that they are second class citizens.

In the 21st century the USA is lagging behind on basic human rights. Do we still need to demand the equality that should be given without question under the 14th Amendment?

"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
hackerblaster
I did not mean that to be a factual statement.
07:30 AM on 11/10/2010
Actually we aren't on the back of the bus we are underneath it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
Honey Badger Don't Care
11:03 AM on 11/10/2010
And weve been run over several times.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HappyBalance
People BEFORE Profits
11:49 AM on 11/10/2010
(Shakes head)

So sad and yet so true.
photo
RainbowPhoenix
My God loves me the way he made me.
03:55 AM on 11/10/2010
Cue the child-murdering bigots screaming about their special treatment being taken away from them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
08:48 PM on 11/23/2010
Faved. This is exactly what they are afraid of...that they will one day lose their precious "right" to publicly hate and discriminate taken from them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:11 AM on 11/10/2010
Giving extra marriage benefits to gays is discrimination against single people. Why should they get benefits just because they have a piece of paper saying they are married? The traditional benefits granted to straight couples are based on the idea of supporting a family. I understand and agree with that although it is true that many couples never produce offspring.

It would be better for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely rather than favor one group over another. Granting special privileges to gays makes an underclass of all single people, who pay their taxes completely.

Why not just give the same tax benefits to everyone? If marriage is not related to procreation then please quit discriminating against single people.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
DallasDon
Yo Yo Yo, This Is My Crow... ✈. Bye, Yo.
03:18 AM on 11/10/2010
_______________­________­¶­­
|.......dgr's....Sewage Truck......||...._____,
|.........This Comment ........­......|­|....[_] [__]\____,
|.......Is Full Of Bullchit ! .....­.....|­|==­[_] [__] ////// [|]
''''''''''''(O)**(O)''''''­'''''­''''­''''''­'''­'''''''­''­''''''''­'­''**(O)­­**(O­)*­­**(O)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:37 AM on 11/10/2010
Since you know that what I am saying is true, you resort to name calling.

Gay benefits are discrimination to an entire class of people, who are called single people. Can you give me one good reason why gays who are married should have special privileges that single people don't?
Of course not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HappyBalance
People BEFORE Profits
11:50 AM on 11/10/2010
LOL! Well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AnotherTry
Tell me again why we can't be equal?
03:37 AM on 11/10/2010
When people marry, they take care of each other. This takes pressure of the state. If you want to take care of yourself, or more likely, can't find someone who wants to take care of you, then your taxes will go to those programs that will be needed to do just that. You're welcome.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:45 AM on 11/10/2010
How do you know that a single person does not need to take care of someone? You assume way too much. Everone is equal in America, except for married gays who are slightly more equal than single people.

As I said before if marriage is not related to procreation, the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
DallasDon
Yo Yo Yo, This Is My Crow... ✈. Bye, Yo.
03:08 AM on 11/10/2010
There's a grave in Congressional Cemetery that's unique,
it's unusual because it does not have a name on it.

These words are etched into the tombstone:

"The military gave me a medal for _killing two men
and a discharge for loving one."

For those who don't know this story,
Sergeant Leonard Matlovich is buried there.

In the 1970's he fought in the Vietnam War
& was awarded multiple medals for bravery & excellent service to America.

He was later discharged because he was gay,
and he chose to let his tombstone stand as a memorial, not to himself,
but to all the gay & lesbian Americans who honorably served our country.

There was a movie made him and came on the cover of Time magazine.

If you'd like to see his tombstone, here's a photograph:

http://www­.cslacker.­com/images­/file/medi­ums/gay_vi­etnam_vete­ran.jpg
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
DallasDon
Yo Yo Yo, This Is My Crow... ✈. Bye, Yo.
03:12 AM on 11/10/2010
Sorry, here's the picture of his grave......

http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/gay_vietnam_veteran.jpg
04:25 AM on 11/10/2010
great, thank you
04:26 AM on 11/10/2010
f&f
03:51 AM on 11/10/2010
I had never heard this story before. Thanks Don.
02:06 AM on 11/10/2010
What I find most amazing is a situation involving a gay couple from California that was married in California and is recognized in California as married but NOT recognized as married by the Federal government is being recognized as married by the IRS for tax collection purposes.

One of them has a tax liability with the IRS. The IRS is now telling them that because California has a community property law, the Federal government is going force the partner to pay half of his partners liability because the person with the liability is currently unemployed and has no income.

How can a couple be denied full recognition of their marriage by the Federal government with the exception of tax collection? Despite their precarious financial situation they now have to hire a lawyer to address the IRS issue. The amount of injustice against the gay community is an embarrassment for a country that claims to be an example for other nations. Sickening!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IndependentMeans
Some people are wise, and some are otherwise.
02:54 AM on 11/10/2010
Stunning sham. The whole US is nuts. Fanned.
12:44 PM on 11/10/2010
I agree!
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RickCoMatic
End WAR Spending! Rebuild AMERICA!
12:31 AM on 11/10/2010
Herein is another fine example why The Constitution needs to be re-worked a bit to update the centuries-old language to end discrimination toward the Gay Community and Women.
On the one hand we have language that clearly states there is to be a division between CHURCH and STATE. Yet we have allowed the angry voices of Fundamentalists, and assorted Bible Thumping splinter groups, in the disguise of the congregation of some crooked Televangelist; pressure lawmakers to use Scripture as the framework for denying the equality to all as The Constitution does demand. The Zealots who preach that same-sex couples are an abomination undeserving human dignity and quote Chapter and Verse persuading Lawmakers to exclude them from equal treatment under the Law; are hate mongers who collect tax-free offerings from those whose minds they are poisoning to spend fueling private jets. Then they are off to exotic locales to behave in a manner that would make a Porn star blush. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the Slaves. What's it going to take to acknowledge the existence, grant them validity, and support the legality of same-sex unions. The Constitution says: "We the People." Gay People. Straight People. ALL People!
01:01 AM on 11/10/2010
I couldn't get past the sentence "clearly states there is to be a division between CHURCH and STATE." First I'm assuming you're talking about the Constitution since you mentioned it in your first sentence.

Where exactly does it say IN THE CONSTITUTION there is to be a "division" between CHURCH and STATE. Once you show me that, then I'll read the rest of your argument.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mag68
01:11 AM on 11/10/2010
Hi Christine! Hey, real sorry about that election, you kinda got hammered. Hey, check out the first amendment. Maybe you can find someone to help you read it and explain it to you. Take care. Btw, you're real funny on Maher, human sacrifice on Halloween, witches and stuff, ha ha ha, oh ha ha ha.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipB
01:13 AM on 11/10/2010
The constitution is clarified by Supreme court rulings, creating binding precedent on the lower courts. The establishment clause of the 2nd has been clarified to remove any ambiguity where the meaning is clear: the "wall of separation" has been affirmed numerous times, and notably in Everson. There is no contention on this, and this understanding has been affirmed by all justices even in a dissent of respective decisions. Further clarity also can be found by lemon.
Some are either ignorant of case law and the constitution, while others would seem to obfuscate facts to manipulate others for their own ends.
I would suggest for further study so you can have some understanding of this by reading the list of establishment clause cases, far too many to mention here:http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/libraryreligion.aspx?topic=establishment_clause_supreme_court_cases_topic