GLAD Files Lawsuit Challenging Denial of Critical Federal Benefits to Married Same-Sex Couples

Married Same-Sex Couples Denied Critical Protections in the 1,138 Federal Laws in Which Marital Status Is a Factor

(March 3, 2009) The first concerted, multi-plaintiff legal challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was filed today by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. targets the denial of certain federal rights and protections to married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. GLAD lawsuits brought marriage equality to Massachusetts (2004) and Connecticut (2008), the only states where same-sex couples can currently legally marry. This suit, filed today in federal District Court in Boston, addresses the use of DOMA Section 3 to deny spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and in the issuance of passports.

“It’s time for the federal government to end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD. “Same-sex married couples have taken on the commitment of marriage, play by the rules, and pay into the system. But they are denied critical federal legal protections that form a safety net to support other married couples and their children.”

Passed in 1996, DOMA Section 3, now codified at 1 U.S.C. section 7, limits the marriages the federal government will respect to those between a man and a woman. Section 2 of DOMA, not at issue in this lawsuit, allows states to establish public policies about what marriages they will and will not respect.

GLAD argues that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income tax, Social Security, federal employees and retirees, and in the issuance of passports. GLAD also contends that DOMA Section 3 is an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into marriage law, always considered the province of the states.

The plaintiffs are eight married couples and three widowers, each of whom is currently eligible for a federal program. Each has applied for a benefit under that program and was denied because of DOMA Section 3.

“After decades together, we were thrilled to be able to marry,” said Nancy Gill, a postal worker married to Marcelle Letourneau. “But we were shocked when I applied to put Marcelle on my family health plan, and we were rejected. My employer, the federal government, doesn’t protect my family the same way it does my co-workers’ families. That’s not right.”

Dean Hara, the surviving spouse of late Congressman Gerry Studds, said “Gerry and I spent 16 wonderful years together and I miss him. The federal government’s denial to me of Gerry’s pension and health insurance added insult to injury at the worst time of my life. These systems are set up to help married people with the sudden loss of their partner, but instead of helping me, it hurt me.”

The plaintiffs represented in the case are:

More...

Nancy Gill (51) and Marcelle Letourneau (47) of Bridgewater: Nancy has been a postal worker for more than 21 years, but as a federal employee she is unable to provide for Marcelle the health benefits that her co-workers' spouses readily receive. Nancy and Marcelle have 2 children.

Dean Hara (51) of Boston: The spouse of former Congressman Gerry Studds who died suddenly in 2006, Dean is denied Gerry’s congressional pension, health insurance, and the other protections available to surviving spouses of federal employees. Studds was a public servant for 27 years, 24 of those in Congress.

Melba Abreu (53) and Beatrice Hernandez (47) of Boston: Both Cuban-Americans, they are unable to file federal tax returns jointly and lose thousands of dollars each year. Because of that inequity, their dream of owning their own business is deferred.

Mary Ritchie (48) and Kathy Bush (49) of Framingham: Mary and Kathy are mothers of two school-age boys. Mary, a state trooper, and Kathy, a stay-at-home mom, have a harder time making ends meet because they cannot jointly file federal taxes. Additionally, Kathy would not be eligible for the full line-of-duty benefit for surviving spouses should Mary die while on the job.

Herbert Burtis (78) of Sandisfield: Herb, a 78-year-old musician and teacher, lost his spouse after 60 years together, including the last 13 when John battled Parkinson’s disease. Herb’s already limited income is severely reduced because he is denied the $700 month that would come with Social Security survivor benefits.

Dorene (43) and Mary (48) Bowe-Shulman of Acton: Dorene and Mary are raising two children and trying to save for their future. Mary, a lawyer, covers Dorene, an acupuncturist, on her health insurance but they pay taxes on the plan because the federal government doesn’t recognize their marriage. They also lose thousands each year because they can’t jointly file federal tax returns.

Randell Lewis-Kendell (52) of Harwich Port: Randy lost Rob, his spouse and partner of 30 years, to cancer in 2007. A shopkeeper on Cape Cod, Randy struggled to pay for Rob’s funeral expenses because the federal government denied him the $255 benefit it provides all other bereaved spouses. When Randy turns 60, he will not be eligible for Rob’s higher Social Security benefit.

Martin (Al) Koski (66) and Jim Fitzgerald (57) of Bourne: Al and Jim have been together for 33 years. Al has retired after working for Social Security for 22 years but unlike his fellow workers he’s unable to provide Jim with health coverage or access to his pension. Jim has severe asthma and they both worry about his health and their security in their old age.

Bette Jo Green (66) and Jo Ann Whitehead (67) of Jamaica Plain: Bette Jo is a retired labor and delivery nurse, and Jo Ann is a semi-retired gardening educator. Their retirement income is smaller than it should be because even though they paid into Social Security throughout their lives, they aren't eligible for the standard spousal Social Security formula that results in higher payments to the lower earning spouse.

Marlin Nabors (31) and Jonathan Knight (28) of Hyde Park: Young marrieds and Mid-Western transplants to Boston, Marlin and Jonathan have just bought their first house together and talk about having children. Unable to jointly file federal tax returns, they have lost thousands of dollars. Yet they would happily pay more in taxes if they knew their marriage was respected by the federal government.

Keith (37) and Al Toney (42) of Worcester: The couple raised Al’s now college-age daughter, and have been foster parents for several children. After choosing the family name “Toney” upon getting married, Keith has been unable to obtain a passport in his correct name because of DOMA, which makes him and the couple vulnerable when they travel in a security-conscious, post-9/11 world.

More than 10,000 couples residing in Massachusetts have married since 2004, and not one has received a single federal benefit or protection available to all other married couples. As soon as couples started marrying, GLAD started hearing from couples who have been harmed and whose children have been harmed because of DOMA.

While GLAD’s case focuses on certain federal programs, DOMA Section 3 cuts across virtually every area of federal law. Married same-sex couples cannot, for example, take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill spouse; access the many family benefits associated with military service; or sponsor a foreign spouse to reside in this country.

GLAD’s legal team is led by Mary Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, and Staff Attorneys Nima Eshghi and Janson Wu. 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 devoted to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

CA Congress Approves Resolution to Overturn Prop 8

Just days before the case on Prop 8 goes to the California Supreme Court, the California Senate has approved a resolution calling on the state Supreme Court to declare the measure - which bans same-sex marriage - illegal because it is an improver revision of the Constitution due to it not being approved by the Legislature. The House had approved its version of the resolution earlier.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said the initiative is a fundamental revision to the document, not an amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses to put it on the ballot.

"Do we have a constitutional democracy in California, or do we have mob rule?" Leno inquired of his colleagues. The resolution was approved with an 18-14 vote.

“Both houses of the legislature recognize that Proposition 8 undermines the fundamental principle of equal protection guaranteed by the California constitution,” Leno said. “Proposition 8’s revision to the California constitution violated key structural checks and balances in the state’s legal system when it was approved by a slim majority of voters last November. If Proposition 8 stands, we would be setting a dangerous precedent in California that allows a majority of the people to deny equal protection under the law to a minority of Californians.”

The state Supreme Court is scheduled to take up a legal challenge to the ballot measure Thursday, March 5.

Republican senators said the resolution was an inappropriate attempt by the Legislature to influence the courts.

Marriage Equality USA Issues New Report and Is Building New Grassroots Clearinghouse

Marriage Equality, who made a big impact at January's EQCA Equality Summit with their reports that countered many of the No on 8 Campaign's political advisers' findings, has issued a new report - "Respect, Empower, Include.". This report highlights dozens of grassroots organizations and projects underway that embody this new vision.

"It is time to implement the collective wisdom gathered from across the state, harness the renewed passion and creativity of grassroots power and chart our course towards securing marriage equality that is wiser and stronger than ever before," said Molly McKay, Marriage Equality USA Media Director. "Our third and final report – Respect, Empower, Include – adopts the Obama field campaign's mission statement as our own mission statement for the marriage equality movement going forward. It embodies what we missed the first time around in the No on 8 Campaign and creates a new vision where everyone is at the table and empowered and encouraged to participate in this civil rights moment of our generation."

"During the campaign and after the November 4th election, we witnessed amazing energy, innovation and leadership from other grassroots organizations and individuals who share common goals and values," said Pamela Brown, Marriage Equality USA Policy Director. "Through town hall meetings across California, the community has called for open, transparent operations that are accountable to the larger community. No one organization can, or should, do it alone, but together we can create an unstoppable, talented team of networked grassroots leaders working in coalition with one another to ensure that all Californians are treated equally under the law and that marriage equality is once again a reality in our state."

"To support this grassroots collaboration and strengthen our grassroots community, Marriage Equality USA will help organize the Statewide Grassroots Coalition Call to bring together representatives from grassroots organizations and support the creation of regional and targeted outreach teams," said Brown.

Interested organizations can register for the call here.

"In addition, we are working with volunteer technology experts from a variety of grassroots groups, including Equality Network, Equality Camp, and Join the Impact, to create a statewide clearinghouse and coalition website housing grassroots organizations and projects devoted to securing marriage equality in California," said McKay. "This site will allow grassroots organizations to sign on as coalition partners, share events through a regional community calendar, post ads for volunteers needed for specific projects and allow for supporters to explore and get involved with the organization/s that best fit their interests."

More...

"Since the election in November, we’ve seen the strength that can come from grassroots collaboration," said Brown. "We have hundreds of organizations working together on over 25 statewide candlelight vigils planned on March 4th, the eve of the California Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8 and San Francisco speakers include Cleve and Dustin, and we expect thousands of supporters to watch the oral arguments on a jumbotron in Civic Center Plaza, just outside the steps of the California Supreme Court."

A complete list of March 4th candlelight vigils can be found at www.EveofJustice.comand individuals interested in donating to the jumbotron can go to www.firstgiving.com/supremecourtjumbotron.

"There has never been more opportunity or potential for change and growth in our marriage equality movement," said McKay. "The community realizes that we must be the change we want to see in the world. The grassroots community is literally buzzing with life. Straight allies are joining us shoulder to shoulder, new leaders are teaching the old veterans new tricks, the Milk movie and the real-life stars from the Defeat of the Briggs Initiative are touring the state to remind us that corporate is not always better. It is the homemade - from the heart, sharing our lives and connecting as fellow human beings that will set us free. We are through with running our civil rights movement by focus groups and political consultants. We hereby take back our movement, reclaim our voices, our dignity, our power. Together we march proudly, with heads high knowing that it is our generation's responsibility and honor to right this wrong. The time is at hand. The movement awaits. Join us!"

The third and final report concludes Marriage Equality USA’s summary of the thousands of grassroots voices who contributed to the community debriefing following the Prop 8 campaign. "We ask that any future campaign start by reviewing the advice, heartache and recommendations from the people whose lives are as stake. We thank everyone who took the time to provide input on what has been a challenging but ultimately enlightening experience for our community," said McKay. "We have learned from the mistakes of the campaign, dusted ourselves off, and deepened our resolve to strengthen our relationships, to love each other for better or worse, to continue to march forward and to never go back into the shadows again. The world only spins forward – let’s get this done so our families can get busy living their happily ever afters."

Marriage Equality USA’s three reports on California’s No on 8 campaign, the harm of anti-gay initiatives like Prop 8, and where we go from here are all available for download on Marriage Equality USA's home page at www.marriageequality.org.

Check Out Vote for Equality!

Want to get involved in hands-on actions? Interact with voters by canvassing and phone banking to explain why they should support LGBT rights? Then check out Vote for Equality. See how you can get involved by reading their flyer below.

VFE flyer_022509

Publish at Scribd or explore others: phone banks marriage equality

A Compromise for Marriage Equality?

On February 21, a NY Times op-ed piece written by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch argued that the federal government should recognize state marriage laws and itself only extend civil union status to relationships recognized in such states. This argument was presented as an attempt to compromise the opposing views on same-sex marriage.

Reading this, I grew more and more irritated - where in the history of civil rights has any minority group compromised their rights? What makes us any different? Why set up a "special" new system for a group that has been accused so many times of wanting "special" rights when all we want is what our fellow citizens already have?

I was preparing a post in response, but the Advocate.com presented three great responses from marriage equality leaders that I feel do a much greater job responding than I ever could. They are Evan Wolfson from Freedom to Marry, Nicky Grist of Alternatives to Marriage Project and Jenny Pizer of Lambda Legal, who will be arguing against Prop 8 in the CA Supreme Court this Thursday, March 5th.

An excerpt of Jenny's response:

"We do not think it's a good compromise at all. The heart of the issue is that we're talking about civil marriage and the fact that the government should be treating everyone equally in this civil institution. They would never suggest that the government disallow interfaith or interracial marriages -- or people who remarry after divorce -- just to accommodate some who oppose such unions on religious grounds.

"The government shouldn't avoid this conflict and "compromise" by saying that a minority group that has been discriminated against and excluded for a long time should continue to be kept out of the system in order to accommodate the views of people who think this minority shouldn't have equal rights and should be segregated and subordinated."

Check out the full responses at the Advocate.com.

EVENT: San Francisco Supreme Court March!

Thousands of people are expected to come from all across the state to the California Supreme Court Building in San Francisco on March 5th in the hopes of attending the oral argument to repeal Proposition 8 and confirm that fundamental freedoms cannot be stripped from minorities by a popular vote. Buses of students are being arranged from Southern California so that young people can witness this civil rights moment of their generation.

Confirmed to appear is activist Cleve Jones.

For information on how to get a ride, find a place to stay or if you can house people, go to www.100000march.org.

Also, there's a call for everyone to wear white on March 5th to symbolize marriage and our belief that our rights will win out over the whim of mob rule.

If you can't make it to San Francisco, the City of LA is hosting a live viewing of the hearing that you can attend.

Don't forget events are taking place all over the state the night before, called Eve of Justice. Check it out!

EVENT: National Equality Rally, May 3rd

For more information, go to National Equality Rally website.