iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gays In The Military Bring Lawsuit To Overturn DOMA

Doma Challenge

First Posted: 10/27/11 01:02 PM ET Updated: 10/27/11 01:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Just over a month after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on Thursday announced a lawsuit seeking to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The lawsuit, first reported by The Huffington Post last week, will be filed in Massachusetts federal court on Thursday on behalf of eight current and retired service members and their families. According to SLDN, the plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of DOMA as well as provisions in Titles 10, 32 and 38 of the U.S. Code that prevent service members in same-sex marriages from receiving the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

At an event announcing the lawsuit at the National Press Club, the plaintiffs and their family members cast the challenge in terms of fairness. "The case we are bringing is about one thing, plain and simple: It's about justice for gay and lesbian service members and their families and our armed forces," said Aubrey Sarvis, an Army veteran and the executive director of SLDN. He stressed that all eight plaintiffs were "legally married" in various states.

Shannon McLaughlin, a major in the Massachusetts National Guard and one of the plaintiffs, made a similar argument. Standing at the podium with her wife and 10-month-old son, she declared that the issue boils down to this: "We've been serving our country too long, working too hard, sacrificing too much to see our families denied the same recognition, support and benefits as our straight married counterparts."

Those benefits include medical coverage, access to military bases, allowances for housing and unit programs that provide support and information to family members. Their denial has taken a concrete toll on service members in same-sex marriages.

Army Lt. Col. Victoria Hudson, for example, highlighted the burden on her and her wife when Hudson was deployed to Iraq in 2005. By her own count, she commanded convoys 19 times while overseas, and each time "it makes you think about, if I don't come back, who's going to notify my wife?" She told The Huffington Post that such clear injustice gives her confidence that the public will understand and support repealing DOMA: "When I say that, you know, I go to Iraq and if I had died my wife, Monica, wouldn't have been notified, they're appalled."

With the Obama administration no longer defending DOMA against legal challenges, SLDN hopes that the case will proceed quickly. Christopher Mann of the law firm Chadbourne & Parke, which is handling the case, said that between the administration's stance and the court's previous experience with DOMA issues, he hoped for a resolution within "a few months."

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has ruled against DOMA in the past, and Mann cited its familiarity with the issue as the reason why SLDN initiated the lawsuit there. "That court's already briefed the issues, they're familiar with it, so it makes sense to go ahead and file there rather than reinvent the wheel before another court," he said. In response to a question, he said the issue may not need to proceed as far as the Supreme Court.

In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to recognize marriage equality. Since doing so, the it has seen more than $100 million in economic benefits from spending on those weddings. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Massachusetts also enjoys the lowest divorce rate in the nation, with 2.2 divorces for every 1,000 couples.

The SLDN lawsuit is not the only current challenge to DOMA. Carmen Cardona, a lesbian Navy veteran, recently filed suit in Connecticut to claim disability benefits for her and her spouse. The payments are currently denied because her marriage, while legal in the state, is not recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs. But any ruling in Cardona's suit, which will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, would not apply to gays who are currently serving in the military.

In Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debate over DOMA repeal on Nov. 3. The proposed Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 30 others, seeks to overturn federal restrictions on recognizing same-sex marriages. While the bill, supported by the committee's entire Democratic majority, is almost certain to advance to the Senate floor, it stands little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House.

Still, SLDN is hopeful that the legislation is a positive sign. "It's unclear which train will get to the station first, but they will be moving on parallel tracks," said Zeke Stokes, the group's communications director.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Just over a month after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on Thursday announced a lawsuit seeking to strike down the federal Defense of Marria...
WASHINGTON -- Just over a month after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on Thursday announced a lawsuit seeking to strike down the federal Defense of Marria...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 43
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wayne Peterson
10:58 AM on 10/30/2011
Hey, Congress.....why not pass a law saying that no one with gray hair can collect benefits? Oh, you say......that's not equal protection of the law.....but requiring a gay person to sue the government in order to get equal protection and treatment is OK? Man...you people are nuts!
09:53 AM on 10/29/2011
At least it's still okay to discriminate against single people, gay or straight. Especially in the military! The "rights" and privileges of marriage should be winnowed down to -only- what makes sense and what's really needed, and rights to set up advantageous property arrangements should be expanded for single people:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1980/43/8043010
03:48 PM on 10/29/2011
Anyone who uses Liesite as a source deserves not to be believed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
andrewlgm
01:46 AM on 10/29/2011
The chips of discrimination are falling - and fast.

John Roberts - chief justice - dissented when they voted to decriminalize sodomy because in his view "if you made such an act legal, then there would be argument to be made against the homosexual life style - we might as well give them full equality now." Paraphrased - but you get the point - read his dissension.

How can you allow an american citizen to be treated as anything less than an american citizen?
03:55 PM on 10/29/2011
Agreed.

But just one point of clarification: Scalia wrote the dissent (just re-read it and threw up in my mouth a little). Roberts joined, but did not author the opinion.
02:46 AM on 10/28/2011
Defense of Marriage Act.

Defend my marriage from what?
09:37 PM on 10/27/2011
I don't understand how anyone can agree with DOMA. How and why do you feel the need to "defend" the discrimination of the LGBT community and their right to getting married and benefits the same as straight couples. The marriage of one couple just because they are same sex or trans does not affect your marriage, I just don't understand the logic.
Good for these people fighting for their rights. They fought for our country, they at least deserve equality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lacrosselamore
sick of sacntomony and deluded fools
03:28 PM on 10/27/2011
They went to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for the rights of Afghanis' and Iraqis', come home and have to fight for their own rights against the same conservative regressives who sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan.
They are true Patriots, un like the Teabaggees who TALK about freedom and rights then fight tooth and nail to withhole freedom and rights from AMericans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
09:19 PM on 10/27/2011
Well said!
11:06 PM on 10/27/2011
you apparently dont know who the real tea party is. The tea party is getting over-run by establishment candidates so they can steal the limelight of the real tea party to make them look bad. Ron Paul is a real tea party candidate, and you can look at his track record, hes never voted to take your rights or raise taxes, or voted on an unbalanced budget... EVER! o and hes for gay rights, because he believes in individual rights, not government rights. dont believe me? youtube Ron Paul gay rights. Vote for anyone else and you can kiss your rights goodbye gay or straight.
ps palin, perry, romney, cain ARE NOT tea party candidates, they are LYING to get extra votes!
10:29 AM on 10/28/2011
Zac, I hate to burst your bubble, but there is NO SUCH THING as "the real tea party". It does not exist. There's no registered political party by that name. There's no Tea Party Headquarters to which one would mail a check. And since there's no Tea Party", any check made out to that entity would bounce. There's no Tea Party platform to even debate. And, every elected politician who claims that misnomer has an "R" after their name. Including Mr. Paul.
10:29 AM on 10/28/2011
Also, I did google "Ron Paul gay rights" and found several dozen sites that refute your claim.

"He opposes gay marriage" (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/ron-paul-woos-social-conservatives-20111008)

"Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry touted their conservative credentials, including opposition to marriage equality" (http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/23101209/herman-cain-ron-paul-rick-santorum-tout-opposition-to-gay-marriage)

"Cain, Gingrich and Paul took strong stands against abortion and same-sex marriage " (http://iowaindependent.com/62599/gop-hopefuls-fight-for-social-conservative-support-in-iowa)

"Paul argues that the federal government should not be involved in marriage at all, but that states should be able to “preserve the traditional definition of marriage.” He supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act".

"Paul has on occasion suggested that government should not have any role in marriage: “I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-the-religious/2011/10/14/gIQAPdUFkL_blog.html)

I.E. Only the 'religious' should be able to get married.

Want more?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wayne Peterson
03:00 PM on 10/27/2011
......"with Liberty and Justice for ALL...."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
09:20 PM on 10/27/2011
Why do the GOTP just not get that already??
02:50 PM on 10/27/2011
This is not just for LGBT troops. It's for all the troops and everyone they serve to protect.

They have risked their lives covering our backs. They deserve no less than they have given.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
09:21 PM on 10/27/2011
I get your point and agree however I would just like to point out that straight troops don't have to live sans 1000+ Federal rights as GLBT troops do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JakeHanson
Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless America!
02:48 PM on 10/27/2011
Repeal DOMA now!!

http://www.repealdoma.com/petition
photo
rltballer
why is equality difficult for some to understand?
02:05 PM on 10/27/2011
Good luck to the military personnel that are persuing this. Very good cause. The bigots need to be defeated and equality for all is needed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
08:24 PM on 10/27/2011
F&F for your micro bio.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BillOlson
Fiscal Conservative - Social Liberal
01:52 PM on 10/27/2011
I've said this over and over and I'll keep saying it until it sinks in... ALL legally married couples must receive the EXACT SAME benefits. If they don't, that is discrimination. DOMA prevents legally married gay couples from receiving benefits that straight married couples receive (social security death benefits, pension benefits, tax deductions, citizenship, etc.) Under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution, Congress CANNOT segregate one group of legally married couples and assign limited benefits under that law... it is discrimination. Furthermore, the separation of church and state must prevent conservative groups from legislating their religious beliefs, otherwise we don't truly have religious freedom in this country.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrld20
01:45 PM on 10/27/2011
DOMA is done for... It's only a matter of time before the courts (or Congress in 2012 if the Democrats retake the house) get rid of it and equality prevails!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Flip75
What's wrong with my micro-bio?
03:42 PM on 10/27/2011
I agree, but wouldn't place much faith in Congress, even if the Dems retake the house. They had a chance between 2008 and 2010 and took no action.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:27 PM on 10/27/2011
Exactly. Not even when they had a supermajority in Congress. Repeal of DOMA would have taken no longer than repeal of DADT. Pelosi would have delivered the House, and if you cannot even bring it to a vote in the Senate with a supermajority, what good is it?

The real sticker is that a Democratic President signed DOMA into law. He should have vetoed it at least on principle. Let Congress have overridden it
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
08:27 PM on 10/27/2011
No I don't look to Congress but rather the courts to get rid of DOMA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
08:28 PM on 10/27/2011
I know it's only a matter of time but dear baby jeebus weve waited long enough!
photo
hrc04
put on your pants and go home.
01:33 PM on 10/27/2011
So since the House Republicans are defending DOMA, its the GOP vs. the troops...can't wait to see this one get explained.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Contact1972
BigGayInc
01:23 PM on 10/27/2011
Pity we have to wait for the courts instead of Congress to get rid of this hateful law. Living sans 1000+ Federal laws and protections is beginning to wear me down.
01:13 PM on 10/27/2011
"According to SLDN, the plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of DOMA as well as provisions in Titles 10, 32 and 38 of the U.S. Code that prevent service members in same-sex marriages from receiving the same benefits as heterosexual couples."

Since the "D"oMA specifically EXEMPTS ITSELF from the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution, how could it be considered "Constitutional" to begin with.

Also, I'm quite surprised no group of federal civil servants has done likewise, since it has been more than two years since the State Department granted benefits to same-sex partners of U.S. diplomats.

Equal is equal and all means ALL.