Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff
Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages filed a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died -- one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds -- said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The 92-page complaint was filed in US District Court in Boston.
The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.
"It hurts," said Dean T. Hara, who was married to Studds from May 2004 until the retired congressman's death in October 2006, as he discussed the federal government's denial of a $255 lump-sum death payment and thousands of dollars in benefits as the surviving spouse of a retired federal employee. "But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."
Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health--the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time--said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.
"This is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and in all likelihood will go to the Supreme Court," she said.
If the plaintiffs win, she said, it would not extend same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts and Connecticut, the two states where it is legal.
But it would dismantle a federal statute that affects more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits, and it would be a huge victory on symbolic and practical levels for supporters of same-sex marriage, according to legal specialists.
"We've got this major federal statute that inflicts really substantial harm on very large numbers of gay people just for being gay people," said Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor. "The federal government declares to these people that it regards their marriages as worthless and would not give those marriages the protection and recognition that it gives to all other marriages. It's quite significant if that is invalidated."
A handful of federal agencies and officials are named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for President Obama, who has spoken of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but does not support same-sex marriage, said the White House had no comment.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the lawsuit represents the latest effort to export gay marriage to other parts of the country. He noted that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, known by its acronym GLAD, has a "Six by Twelve" campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012, and he said some gay-rights groups want a federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
But the tide of public opinion is strongly against them, he said. Voters in 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Mineau said, including California, which in a November referendum overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had recently given gay couples the right to marry.
"There's no doubt that the desire of the citizens of America . . . is that marriage is to remain one man and one woman, and that's what the intent of DOMA is as well," he said, using the acronym for the federal law.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it appeared increasingly likely that some state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.
Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
Same-sex weddings began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, and about 10,000 couples have married. Two years later, GLAD quietly began surveying couples to determine whether they wanted federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.
Among those who say they have been discriminated against are Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, a Bridgewater couple who have been together nearly 30 years and married four days after same-sex weddings began. They have two children.
Gill, 51, who has worked for the Postal Service since 1987, has repeatedly tried to put Letourneau on her health insurance plan, but her employer has rejected her applications, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.
Letourneau, 47, has health insurance through her employer, Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice, but the couple estimates that it costs them $800 more a year than it would if she could be on Gill's plan.
"I feel like I am not being treated the same as my other married co-workers," Gill said. "I earn those same benefits as my co-workers, yet I'm not allowed to use them."
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com
Comment
Permalink
Email
Good Luck to the Plaintiffs! Justice for All!
The time has come. Civil rights are not something that should be decided by popular vote -- if so, slavery never would have ended.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman, only.
Tens of thousands of years of evolution can't be wrong.
If people are really against gay marriage, I myself don't care we have more important things to do then who marries who, can you really look in someones eyes and say "You don't have the right to see them in the hospital"
Is it really going to kill you to let them use their spouses health insurance?
Thank you Mary Bonauto!
I hope the timing is right for this lawsuit. Is this the Supreme Court we want to take these challenges to? A bad decision can be more damaging as no decision at all.
Evolution is about Change. After ten thousands of years the change is finally happening. Good Luck to the Plaintiffs
The dispute is not about equal rights, it's about using the name "marriage."
"Tens of thousands of years of evolution can't be wrong."
I couldn't agree more! Nothing stays the same forever...and full equality is the next logical step in the evolution of the institution of marriage!!
Thanks, GLAD!!!
Marriage is defined by love. If a gay couple wants to wed and have the same rights then so be it, anything else is considered ridiculous. You have every right to marry the person you love and share in all that comes with it.
As we all know, evolution changes, otherwise there would be a chimp at my desk typing this comment ( david.....)
Equality under the law is never wrong. Gay relationships are just as natural and wonderful as a heterosexual relationship. In the end, Love is Love.
David Shumaker - Nice of you to say who can marry whom. Well, I say marriage should be between two consenting adults whom love each other. As for evolution, gays and lesbians have always been a part of humanity. It's just self-righteous persons such as yourself who continue deny that we exist and continually deny us our EQUAL rights through your bigotry. You won't win.
"If people are really against gay marriage, I myself don't care we have more important things to do then who marries who, can you really look in someones eyes and say "You don't have the right to see them in the hospital"
Is it really going to kill you to let them use their spouses health insurance?"
It wouldn't require a change in law for that to happen. I am against gay marriage but I am for certain rights by gays. They are still human beings after all.
what about 2 sraight men or women being married?
Viva the 14th Amendment!
To those who say "Marriage should be between a man and a woman, only. Tens of thousands of years of evolution can't be wrong." There is no logic to that statement. First, gays and lesbians have roamed the earth for as long as straights. But historically we have been largely invisible, hiding to avoid certain death at the hands of people like you. You say evolution can't be wrong? Huh? There isn't a right or wrong to evolution-- i.e. not all kinds of evolution benefit a species. But if you mean (M+F) procreation ensures human survival, and dub this as an evolutionary right, how do you square it with overpopulation, global warming and potential extinction? Please stick to your religious objections to gays and leave the scientific explanations to people who can think.
Despite all the political rhetoric, "marriage" is a man-made political institution created to transfer finances. It was not created by some unseen God. it was created by men. Face the truth. Stop hiding behind your Bible.
Good luck to the Defendants!!
What does evolution have to do with it.
Tens of thousands of years of evolution came up with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
That's your defense? Sad.
Remember fellow Bostonians...
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation...
It also is one of the few to recognize gay marriages.
You do the math..
Is this really ruining heterosexual unions?
Also, for those against gay marraiges... do you really need the gay person that bad for a "rightful evolutionary supported union"... are there not enough "breeders" out there for you? Think about it... . Oh, and animals are known to engage in gay relations so evolution doesn't cut it...
please don't forget there is little seperating man from beast... one being EGO.
And try not the religion defense... most of our catholic priests are severely repressed homosexuals who that take out their anger against the weaker...so you see where those falsifactions in beliefs get us...
Are you going to try and tell me that Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, or Allah had dislikes for any human? Are you going to try and judge --- cause I hate to tell you, that is not religious faith actions.
Oh yes.. and where does it say in the bible, koran, or anywhere else that a person is going to go to "hell" if another person "sins?"
Please get off your high horses...
Support our fellow brothers and sisters during their plight for equality.
Funny how all of those Red "Christian" states have the highest divorce rates - it's okay to get married three times - right? DIVORCE is a threat to marriage and family - not gay marriage. As usual, some people are incapable of just minding their own business when it comes to the sex lives of others.
When you people lose, don't cry foul. 2+2 doesn't equal 5 either.
To start off I will state that I am in favor of gay marriage. I will however argue that gay and lesbian groups have not done themselves any favors by insisting that it be called marriage. There are many very traditional voters who feel that it is offensive to claim that a marriage is anything but what it has been for thousands of years, a man and a woman. I think the gay and lesbian community are asking too much, too soon, wanting others to be tolerant of their beliefs, their way of life, but they cannot be tolerant of the beliefs of others. There would be very little resistance to civil unions that offer all the benefits of marriage while conservatives get used to the idea of gay marriage.
I'm in total support of a federal law that will legalize same sex marriage. Few institutions, private or public, of course have worked this into their future budgets. Think of how much Social Security is saving by not having to pay out survivors benefits.
There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It has never been put to a vote and won. Massachusetts has it from paid off judges that changed thousands of years of historic law and never gave the public a choice. What was wrong with civil union.
If you win, you'll probably help the GOP take back both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012.
I wish people would stop correlating civil rights with gay marriage...it's insulting to my fellow african americans whose ancestors were enslaved...there's a big difference...
If you withhold one groups from the rights and freedoms the majorty has then that is completely un-American. Either Marriage for all under the law or civil unions for all under the law, pick one.
As the law stands now, real people are unfairly hurt. Let's do what is good and right. This is about "liberty and justice for ALL!"
Slavery and homosexual marriage are not equatable. Slavery was a legal practice in which people were forcibly taken and put into bondage. Homosexual marriage, just as heterosexual marriage, is voluntary. By the way, civil rights are essentially determined by popular vote, as those who make the laws are determined by popular vote, the people who appoint justices to courts are determined both directly and indirectly by popular vote, thus civil rights are determined by popular vote.
"Marriage should be between a man and a woman, only.
Tens of thousands of years of evolution can't be wrong."
Posted by David Shumacker March 3, 09 01:50 PM
David be careful, using history to define Marriage as between "a" (read one) man and "a" (read one) woman, puts you in danger of someone using that same history to justify polygamy. As many religions have and still do sanction it. Note that references in the Bible seem to justify it. People keep saying the Bible and history don't approve gay marriage. Then they suggest that if we allow gay we will have to allow polygamy. Logic is looking to bite your butt.
Evolution - is about survial of the fit. Man and woman are by chance. We could have all been hermorfidites (then what). Lets stick to the topic Evolution fine we've evolved from caves, so lets let our minds continue to evolve and show UNDERSTANDING not deevolve and go back to you. UG you WOMAN ME MAN... give me a break !
Well David, I evolved into a gay person, so from your perspective evolution might actually be wrong.
Mr. Shumacker- you said it so elegantly- "tens of Thousands of years of evolution" - how right you are, evolution means things change, evolve- get over it , no one is doing any harm to you and dont even dare bring religion into it- we all know what goes in the catholic church!!!! Go crawl back into your cave, you obviously havent been evolving with the times!!
I am a gay male. I do not believe in gay MARRIAGE. I believe in gay unions that have 100% of the EXACT same rights just under a NON RELIGIOUS name. Gay people for far too long have argued against the bible for equality...yet they continue to use that horrible RELIGIOUS word to describe their love. For the love of god, yes god, to all my fellow gay people stop using the word marriage and fight for seperation of church and state. Fight for 100% equality. Fighting for MARRIAGE is a direct contradiction to our very own arguments. You cant stay stop hiding behind your bibles and still fight for the word marriage. *sigh* Im not only in the gay minority im also in the true equality minority.
It's funny how some members of a group of Americans who got their civil rights by court decree and definitely not by popular vote are now fervently tryng to discriminate against another group of Americans who are in the same boat as they themselves were back before the Jonhson days. Such ignorance and hypocrisy are sad and have no place in the future of this beautiful world.
I do not see why the justice system can not let everyone in with a problem to sue someone? Majority rules was the words I always heard growing up is that no longer the case? I only have one question to the single sex people......who unlocked the closet? We have seen gays go from being ashamed of being gay and hiding their sexuality to flaunting it in the streets during parades why is this necessary? Does society as a whole need your sexual orientation driven down everyones throats? Is the sanctity of your privacy really worth all of this political statement? It is all self centered fear that you are trying to escape not gaining equality. If you want the same rights as heterosexual couples does that also include child support to one of the divorced? I see this as someone trying to find a way to live off of another not for love but for security. I think there is a bug that resembles this......the leach.
For those who think its an equal rights issue, you'll have a valid point when ANY two consenting adults can marry. I keep thinking about my cousin and how it is so inherently unfair that I can't marry her.....
I do think this case will go to the US Supreme Court.
I got legally married on July 1st, 2005 at Boston City Hall to my partner of 18 years (at that time). We celebrated 22 years together on January 4th, 2009. On neither occasion did the sky fall.
Can you say "frivolous lawsuit?" Massachusetts (and Connecticut) can no more expand the class Congress intended to benefit by changing its definition of marriage than it can by saying "spouse" includes business partner. Giving comparable benefits to same-sex couples is one thing; turning the law upside down is something else entirely.
Nshore stated: "I wish people would stop correlating civil rights with gay marriage...it's insulting to my fellow african americans whose ancestors were enslaved...there's a big difference..." Ok, so gays and lesbians should be content to ride at the back of the bus just as long as we're on the bus? We should accept substandard schooling and be happy that we're receiving an education? Nshore, you weren't enslaved and you have your civil rights. Looks like the once persecuted is now the persecutor. Make you feel better than us?
Homosexual "marriage" is still not legal in Massachusetts. The marriage statute (Ch. 207) was never changed from man/woman, husband/wife to allow for same-sex couples, as the Court suggested the Legislature do. Only because Gov Mitt Romney took the "law" into his own hands do we have "gay marriage" in Mass. He had no authority to change the marriage licenses or give orders to town clerks & JPs. But in the age of Obama, facts do not matter.
Government should get out of the marriage business. Leave that to the churches, the temples, and the mosques, etc.
Europe has the right idea. Civil unions are legal contracts between partners. They spell out conditions of license, they require certain conditions meant to protect partners from each other in civil matters and to grant them legal rights. After they have been joined in a civil union, then, if they so desire they can be married within the rules of their various religious institutions.
In a way it's all just semantics.
If people want to be "married" let them do so within the context of their various religious institutions.
"I wish people would stop correlating civil rights with gay marriage...it's insulting to my fellow african americans whose ancestors were enslaved...there's a big difference..."
Um. I have to point out that you weren't enslaved, either. The civil rights movement was about getting equal rights. The right to marry the person you wanted was definitely a part of that, considering that black people can marry whites now. You're just looking hypocritical, unless you want to be the one who's treated as a second-class citizen again. Yes, white people did terrible things to black people. They still do. That doesn't mean that black people should hate gay people because gay people are lower on the totem pole now. It's even worse, because you should know better.
" Does society as a whole need your sexual orientation driven down everyones throats? "
Only until we have equal rights. If you'd just let us have equal rights, we wouldn't have anything to complain about, and we'd shut the fuck up. Seriously. I just want it to be fair.
" I think there is a bug that resembles this......the leach."
It's a leech. Ignorance is easy to fix, even if stupidity isn't.
"Homosexual "marriage" is still not legal in Massachusetts. The marriage statute (Ch. 207) was never changed from man/woman, husband/wife to allow for same-sex couples, as the Court suggested the Legislature do. Only because Gov Mitt Romney took the "law" into his own hands do we have "gay marriage" in Mass. He had no authority to change the marriage licenses or give orders to town clerks & JPs. But in the age of Obama, facts do not matter."
Don't go blaming this on OBAMA. First, he's against gay marriage, so this isn't his policy. 2) IT WAS BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT SO GROW UP. You aren't three.
"Government should get out of the marriage business. Leave that to the churches, the temples, and the mosques, etc.
Europe has the right idea. Civil unions are legal contracts between partners. They spell out conditions of license, they require certain conditions meant to protect partners from each other in civil matters and to grant them legal rights. After they have been joined in a civil union, then, if they so desire they can be married within the rules of their various religious institutions.
In a way it's all just semantics.
If people want to be "married" let them do so within the context of their various religious institutions."
I definitely agree. I'd love it if I could get a civil union in any of the fifty states, and a marriage at any consenting church. I don't see why it's such a big deal!
wAE51E comment6 ,
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
INside Boston.com
LOCAL BLOGS
Universal Hub
The Chinatown Blog
CommonWealth Magazine
Red Mass Group
Blue Mass Group
Boston 1775
The Berkeley Beacon
The Daily Collegian
The Daily Free Press
The Harvard Crimson
The Heights
The Huntington News
The Suffolk Voice
The Tech
The Tufts Daily