Federal Court Rules DOMA Violates Equal Protection
U.S. District Court Judge Jospeh Tauro, appointed to the federal bench in 1972, ruled this afternoon in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to a tweet sent from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which brought the case. A companion decision in Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services also was issued, according to a GLAD news advisort
Section 3 of DOMA defines "marriage" and "spouse" at the federal level as constituting only opposite-sex couples. It reads:
`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.'.
The Gill case, which was filed first, is unique because it challenged not the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the discrimination faced by same-sex couples who were legally married in Massachusetts but are treated differently than opposite-sex married couples by the federal government. The case points to health and retirement benefits of federal employees and their same-sex spouses or, in one case, the widow of a former federal employee. It also challenges diffential tax treatment faced by same-sex couples.
The Massachusetts challenge adresses specific problems faced by the state of Massachusetts because of the federal prohibition on recognition of the same-sex marriages legally entered into in the state.
More will be forthcoming ...
No comments:
Post a Comment