DOJ Appeals Rulings Against DOMA To 1st U.S.Circuit

As expected, the Department of Justice announced yesterday that it would appeal two federal district court rulings striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The two cases are Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services where federal judge Joseph L. Tauro declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional this summer.

As Chris Geidner of PoliGlot reports:

In a move expected by most legal observers, the U.S. Department of Justice this afternoon filed notices of appeal in two cases striking down the federal definition of marriage, contained in the Defense of Marriage Act, as unconstitutional.

[...]

The White House issued no comment on the filing and directed questions to DOJ.

The filing of the notice means that the record of the trial court case will be sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Once the record is complete, DOJ will have 40 days to file its brief. GLAD or Massachusetts, depending on the case, will then have 30 days to file its brief. The government then has 14 days to file a reply brief.

The full statement by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is:

Today, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Representing seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, GLAD filed Gill in March 2009.  The case was heard in May 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro, who issued a decision finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional on July 8, 2010.

“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director.  “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits.  We are confident in the strength of our case.”

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The next step will be for the government to file its brief to that court arguing that Judge Tauro’s ruling was wrong.  GLAD will then file its brief in opposition to the government, and finally the government will file a reply brief.  At that point, the appeal will be scheduled for oral argument.  Briefing could be concluded by the spring of 2011 with oral argument to follow by the fall of 2011.

The government also today filed its notice of appeal in the related case Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-counsel in the Gill case are attorneys from the firms Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

MadProfessah supports the appeal by the Administration and fully expects GLAD to be successful at the 1st Circuit appellate level and U.S. Supreme Court.

READ Gill v. OPM Decision Striking Down DOMA

A big day for supporters of marriage equality today! A federal judge struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in two cases, Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DHHS today. The first case was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts and would like the federal government to recognize that status. The second case was filed by former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Here's the text of the Gill decision:

2010-07-08 Gill v. OPM Case Striking Down DOMA Sec. 3

Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:

DOMA decision in Mass AG case

Federal Court Hears Challenge To DOMA

Today, federal judge Joseph Tauro is hearing oral arguments in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which purports to disallow any federal benefits to any marriage which does not consist of one man and woman.

Cue the press release:

Federal Court Hears Arguments in DOMA Challenge

This morning in Boston, six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers went to Federal District Court to hear arguments in their challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for all purposes under federal law.

Represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the plaintiffs in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, all married in Massachusetts, have each been harmed by DOMA treating them as unmarried.

“This is a classic equal protection issue. The Constitution applies to gay and lesbian citizens, and married ones, too,” Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director, told the Court. “What governmental purpose does the US have as an employer in treating some of its married employees, retirees and surviving annuitants differently from other married persons, such that Nancy Gill pays for a self and family plan like some of her married colleagues, but the plan doesn’t cover her own spouse?”

Bonauto presented a three-pronged legal argument: By singling out only the marriages of same-sex couples, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into marriage law, which for 230 years has been legislated by states; and by denying federal protections to families, DOMA burdens the marriages of same-sex couples and their right to maintain family integrity.

U.S. District Court Judge, Joseph L. Tauro, vigorously questioned plaintiffs and defendants in a courtroom packed with supporters and media. Judge Tauro heard GLAD’s motion for summary judgment as well as the federal government’s motion to dismiss. The hearing addressed the core issue of whether DOMA Section 3 is constitutional six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

As a result of DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, plaintiffs in GLAD’s lawsuit have been denied survivor benefits on a deceased spouse’s pension; denied health insurance coverage for a spouse on a federal family plan; denied Social Security spousal, death, and widower benefits; and denied the ability to file federal income taxes jointly as married.

“DOMA means that our country doesn’t treat our family or our marriage as equal to our friends’ and coworkers’ families,” said plaintiff Nancy Gill after the hearing. A U.S. Postal Service employee, Gill, with her spouse Marcelle Letourneau, is raising two children in Brockton. “Under DOMA, we are not married, and my federal employer must deny Marcelle my health benefits. Under DOMA Marcelle won’t receive the federal health benefit given to surviving spouses. She’ll also be denied my pension benefits.”

Gill was filed on March 3, 2009, and has been called the case with the greatest potential for national impact by the National Law Journal. The Gill legal team is led by Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, and staff attorneys Nima Eshghi, Janson Wu, and Samuel Bickett. Co-operating counsel on the case include Foley Hoag LLP (Boston), Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC) and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC (Washington, DC).

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

Information about the case, the plaintiffs, and the attorneys representing them can be found at www.glad.org/doma.

This lawsuit has a very good chance of succeeding, even with a court with Scalia on it.

ACTION: Vote for Rock For Equality Video!

The above video is one of 15 finalists in the YouTube's Nonprofit DoGooder Video Awards. The winning video will be featured on the homepage of YouTube.com. The video, called "What Kind Of Planet Are We On?," merges science fiction with a story about the heartbreak of the surviving spouse of a same-sex couple (even legally married ones) being denied access to federal social security benefits thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, just because of the gender of the recipients.

VOTE NOW!

Obama Speech at HRC Gala

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Sunday NYT Calculates The Cost Of Being A Gay Couple

The Sunday New York Times has an in-depth analysis of the financial implications of being a same-sex couple in America. The results are fascinating reading:

It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.

Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple’s.

[...]

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

[...]

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage.

And that last line says it all. Repeal DOMA!

Bill To Repeal DOMA Introduced

Yesterday, U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and more than ninety other congressmembers introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 3567) in Washington, D.C. which would repeal 1996's Defense of Marriage Act.

According to The Advocate there are currently 92 Congressmembers who voted for that bill and who are still in Congress now:

Sanford Bishop (D-AL)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
James Clyburn (D-SC)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Norman Dicks (D-WA)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Chet Edwards (D-TX)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Gene Green (D-TX)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
John Murtha (D-PA)
Richard Neal (D-MA)
James Oberstar (D-MN)
David Obey (D-WI)
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Ike Skelton (D-MO)
John Spratt (D-SC)
Bart Stupak (D-MI)
John Tanner (D-TN)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Peter Visclosky (D-IN)

Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Joe Barton (R-TX)
Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
John Boehner (R-OH)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Dave Camp (R-MI)
Michael Castle (R-DE)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
David Dreier (R-CA)
John Duncan Jr. (R-TN)
Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Elton Gallegly (R-CA)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Ralph Hall (R-TX)
Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Wally Herger (R-CA)
Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Bob Inglis (R-SC)
Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
Pete King (R-NY)
Jack Kingston (R-GA)
Tom Latham (R-IA)
Steven LaTourette (R-OH)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
John Linder (R-GA)
Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Frank Lucas (R-OK)
John McHugh (R-NY)
Buck McKeon (R-CA)
John Mica (R-FL)
Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Thomas Petri (R-WI)
George Radanovich (R-CA)
Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Zach Wamp (R-TN)
Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
Frank Wolf (R-VA)
Don Young (R-AK)

There are at least 5 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for DOMA who are still in Congress. Let's hope that now that there are legally married same-sex couples in California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont these elected officials will see the error of their ways and support Rep. Nadler's bill to correct their mistake from 13 years ago.

President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, is one of several former supports of the bill who now support H.R. 3567 and said so in a statement released yesterday.

“Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind,” Clinton said, according to Nadler. “When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy."

DOMA Challenge Smelt v U.S. Dismissed

The federal challenge to DOMA in which the Department of Justice defended the law in an arguably homophobic way was dismissed by the Judge yesterday.

The Obama administration scored a victory of sorts in federal court Monday when a judge threw out an Orange County gay couple's lawsuit claiming that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

[...]

Assistant Atty. Gen. Tony West, in his brief filed before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, agreed with Smelt and Hammer that the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed. But West noted that he was obliged to defend the law until Congress moves to repeal or amend it. He urged the court to dismiss the men's suit on grounds that their allegations "fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

Carter agreed, explaining in his seven-page decision that the absence of "an injury in fact" meant the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the broader constitutional questions.

Smelt and Hammer had also filed suit in California superior court. That action was dismissed earlier this year on similar grounds, as their marriage is legal in California.

It is likely the lawsuit will be refiled in federal court again. However, many LGBT activists were flabbergasted when the attorneys for the plaintiffs revealed their real intention in the lawsuit was to split the state of California into two pieces.

Hat/tip Joe.My.God

DOJ Defends DOMA Again But Calls For Its Repeal

The Department of Justice is again defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court with a brief filed today but this time in a way that will not get LGBT activists' knickers in a twist.

This time the President of the Unite States issued a statement on the DOJ brief being filed in Smelt vs United States:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of Media Affairs
_________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 17, 2009

Statement by the President on the Smelt v. United States Brief

Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

Chris Geidner of LawDork has some excellent analysis of the new brief in this case, but notes (like MadProfessah has previously) that the most important case in all these skirmishes over DOMA is Gill vs. Office of Personnel Management, the federal lawsuit against Section 3 of DOMA filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders from Massachusetts.

What the Obama Administration does in Gill will be very very important as to whether DOMA survives the Obama Administration.

Massachusetts Sues U.S. Over DOMA

On Tuesday Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of her state's estimated 16, 000 married same-sex couples who are denied any recognition of their legally married status by the federal government due to 1996's odious Defense of Marriage Act.

According to TowleRoad:

The suit states that DOMA, termed "overreaching and discriminatory," interferes with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage."

"We view all married persons equally," Coakley said at a press conference [Tuesday].

The basis for the suit is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 8 of the Constitution. Along with the United States itself, defendants include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Massachusetts' lawsuit is another legal attack on DOMA, following a similar lawsuit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders earlier this year. Both lawsuits just challenge Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the United States from allowing any federal benefit, right or responsibility to be bestowed on any married couple in which the parties do not consist of a man and a woman:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`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.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

This is not to be confused with the other recent federal lawsuit which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples as a matter of federal law.

A Visual Summary of the Marriage Equality Debate

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God. The original source is here.

Media Covers LGBT Displeasure With Obama

Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press

Joe.My.God does a good job of covering the reaction of the three openly gay members of Congress to the ongoing flap over the Obama Department of Justice defending DOMA in court in a way that offended LGBT activists:

Barney Frank (D-MA): “I think the administration made a big mistake. The wording they used was inappropriate. I’ve been in touch with the White House and I’m hoping the president will make clear these were not his views.” Frank says that the DNC fundraiser boycott is wrong. “There are a lot of people who aren’t boycotting. I think it’s a mistake to deny money to the DNC.”

Rep. Tammy Balwin (D-WI): "Last week the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration. I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal of DOMA. I also recognize that he cannot do it alone. Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation that would give the opportunity to the President to keep his word and ensure that all married people, including those in same-sex marriages, enjoy the same rights under federal law."

Rep. Jaris Polis (D-CO): "I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change. Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply"

In today's Los Angeles Times, Jessica Garrison and Mark Z. Barabak have an article entitled "Obama Policy Is Outreach To Gays" which quotes numerous LGBT activists reacting to the Obama administration's decision to offer (some) domestic partner benefits to federal employees:

"This is a good thing for the small percentage of . . . people that work for the federal government, but it leaves out the vast majority of people who are in same-sex relationships," said Geoff Kors, head of Equality California, one of the state's largest gay rights groups.

[...]

Although there is some sympathy for the president's position -- "he has enormous stuff on his plate that requires a lot of political capital," said Steve Elmendorf, a gay Democratic strategist -- many think the concerns of gays and lesbians are once again being shunted to second- and third-tier status.

Ken Sherrill, a Hunter College political scientist and gay activist, recalled how the Clinton administration started with great hope but ended in disappointment when the president, for tactical reasons, retreated on gay rights. President Clinton approved both the marriage bill and the policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

"There's a fear that Obama will prove to be a heartbreaker as well," Sherrill said.

A White House spokesman said Tuesday that the president was not retreating from his campaign promises. "The president remains fully committed to the . . . proposals he made," Adam Abrams said. "We have already begun work on many of these issues."

[...]

Nothing, however, matches the outrage provoked by last week's court filing in Santa Ana supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. The fact that the brief was filed during Gay Pride Month, which Obama saluted with a formal proclamation, only compounded the sense of insult.

"You have some appointments that have been good and a proclamation," said Sherrill, who has written extensively on the history of the gay rights movement. "And then two tangible areas where the administration has done something wrongheaded and offensive. Doing nothing at all would have been a helluva lot better."

Indeed.

Obama Administration To Announce (Some) Federal DP Benefts

What a difference a few days make! It was announced late on Tuesday that the Obama Administration will allow domestic partners of federal employees to receive some benefits, although apparently health benefits will not be included, due to the odious Defense of Marriage Act.

According to the New York Times:

Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.

“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”

Presumably, the President will announce his support for H.R. 2517/S. 1102, the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, co-authored by Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) which would extend health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.

The gay blogosphere is all over the story, and many of them are not impressed. Many people are pointing out that this first announcement of an LGBT initiative is occurring after a furor has blown up over an LGBT Democratic National Committee fundraising event scheduled for next week started receiving high profile defections.

In Jeff Zeleny's article in the Times it is revealed that

"the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak."

Emphasis added by Pam Spaulding over at The Blend. John Aravosis at AmericaBlog is one of the main sparks fanning the flames of the furor.

Excitin times, peeps!

Top Gay Explains Obama Actions On LGBT Issues

Lesbian reporter Kerry Eleveld interviewed OPM Director John Berry yesterday at an LGBT pride festival in Washington, D.C. and he gave this extended answer on behalf of the White House:

We have four broad legislative goals that we want to accomplish and legislation is one of these things where you've got to move when the opportunity strikes, so I'm going to list them in an order but it's not necessarily going to go one, two, three, four. Obviously, I think the first opportunity is hate crimes and we're hopeful that we can get that passed this week. We're going to try, but if not, we're going to keep at it until we get it passed. The second one ENDA, we want to secure that passage of ENDA, and third is we want to repeal legislatively "don't ask don't tell," and fourth, we want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Now, I'm not going to pledge -- and nor is the president -- that this is going to be done by some certain date.

He also went on to discuss the controversy du jour, the DOJ brief defending DOMA:

Finally, I want to talk to you about the DOMA brief. Our strongest argument against “don’t ask, don’t tell” is that we stand with the truth. And that we, more than anyone, know the cost of lying and the terrible pain it invokes.

This president took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and he does not get to decide and choose which laws he enforces. He has to enforce the laws that have been enacted appropriately and that he has inherited. It would be wrong for me or any of our community to advise him to lie or to shirk his responsibility. He’s doing his job. He has made clear that he stands for the repeal of DOMA. It will be part of this administration’s agenda to accomplish that act. We ought not waste energy and angst attacking him when we should be focusing the energy and effort on getting 218 votes in the house and 60 votes in the Senate, and that’s where we ought to target the energy and the strength of this community and this president is with us, this is our agenda and it’s his agenda.

I find it bizarre that the Obama White House thinks that it doesn't have the votes to pass legislation (DADT repeal and trans-inclusive ENDA) which has huge popular support.

However, what this John Berry interview reveals is that the White House strongly needs to hear the appeal by former Clinton adviser that they need to appoint a senior White House aide to deal with LGBT issues. It's not John Berry's job to be the mouthpiece for the Obama administration simply because he's the highest ranked openly gay Obama appointee. Berry is the head of the agency which manages the 1.9 million strong federal workforce. Someone else should be tasked with interfacing with "senior Administration officials" when LGBT issues arise.

LGBT Groups React To Obama Administration DOMA Support

The Obama Administration finally responded in court today in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the so-called "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights had his Justice Department argue that DOMA is constitutional and serves a legitimate governemental purpose: saving money. Needless to say, the LGBT groups are NOT AMUSED:

We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.

We disagree with many of the administration’s arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.

We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be "neutral" with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states. There is nothing "neutral" about the federal government’s discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of "neutrality" ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive. It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA. For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality.

When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.

Signed:

American Civil Liberties Union

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders

Human Rights Campaign

Lambda Legal

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce

Happy LGBT Pride Month!

Pressuring Obama To Not Flip Flop on DOMA

Joe.My.God is reporting about a new way to pressure President Obama to live up to his campaign promises to the LGBT community and work hard to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act called Operation Doma Flip Flop.

The campaign's press release says:

A national grassroots effort has been released on May 18, 2009 known as the DOMA Flip Flop campaign. Endorsing organizations include Join The Impact , Change.org , Join The Impact MA , and the Cambridge Democratic City Comittee . Organizers are asking participants to print out a ‘flip flop card’ with the the statement, “President Obama, please don’t flip flop on DOMA!” on it. Participants are asked to mail the ‘flip flop card’ to the White House from now until President Obama makes his decision on the DOMA lawsuit.

A President has the authority to not defend a Congressional law that is unconstitutional on its face. Past Presidents have exercised this right ranging from Ronald Reagan in the case of INS v. Chadha (1983) to George Bush Sr. in Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (1990) and Bill Clinton in Dickerson v. United States (2000). There is no clearer example of a blatantly unconstitutional law than DOMA which President Obama himself has called an “abhorrent law” and that its repeal is “essential”.

“President Obama, the defense of this discriminatory and archaic law will be tantamount to nothing short of a flip flop from your previously stated intentions. We’re asking you Mr. President, to take a principled stand for equality under the law and be the bold leader that we voted into office.” said Paul Sousa, creator of the DOMA flip flop campaign.

There is also a Washington Post editorial urging President Obama to take the very same action, “President Obama is on record opposing DOMA. Although the Justice Department typically defends acts of Congress in court, Mr. Obama should ask his legal advisers to determine whether they, like the plaintiffs, believe DOMA as applied in this case is unconstitutional. If so, Mr. Obama should consider whether this is one of those rare instances where the Justice Department declines to defend a law.”

The Obama Administration has until June 22 to respond in court to GLAD's lawsuit. Many people are watching the administration's actions very closely on this and other campaign promoises to the LGBT community.

The President is in Los Angeles today attending a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee at the Beverly Hills Hilton.