Straight married couples get a load of federal benefits that are denied to married gays. Granted, only Massachusetts and Connecticut currently recognize gay marriages, but maybe this lawsuit could be a tipping point for GLBT rights.
Several gay couples from Massachusetts have brought a lawsuit against the government seeking federal benefits.
The plaintiffs “include a U.S. Postal Service employee who wasn’t allowed to add her
spouse to her health insurance plan; a Social Security Administration
retiree who was denied health insurance for his spouse; three widowers
who were denied death benefits for funeral expenses; and a man who has
been denied a passport bearing his married name.
The biggest legal hurdle is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 which said the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriages even if a state did. Thus far the Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the numerous challenges to DOMA.
To further cloud things, Obama unequivocally supported the repeal of DOMA, at least on the campaign trail.
Do you think this lawsuit will go anywhere?
– Wilbur
The lawsuit isn’t going to go anywhere because DOMA is still in effect. DOMA precludes all federal courts (including the United States Supreme court) from hearing any appeal on the issue of same-sex marriage by robbing them of subject matter jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the courts are powerless to act.
In order to have these cases heard, DOMA needs to be repealed. Why isn’t Obama so gung-ho about repealing DOMA now????
The above point is simply not correct.
An act of Congress cannot rob the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction regarding the constitutionality of a federal statute. The Supreme Court has long ruled (and always will) that it has the right to rule on the constitutionality of federal actions.
DOMA does not change this. Instead, SOME of the versions of the *proposed* Federal Marriage Amendment would make it clear that the principal constitutional objections to DOMA and similar state laws (full faith and credit clause, equal protection clause) do not apply to DOMA statutes at the federal or state level. The FMA, as opposed to DOMA, would be a change to the constitution and thus theoretically outside the purview of the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, the US Supreme Court could rule, as has the California Supreme Court, that constitutional changes can be reviewed to determine if they conflict with other provisions that are not addressed by the amendment. It’s highly unlikely, but the USSC could rule that an amendment cannot curtail the reach of a provision that is otherwise broad and sweeping.
I am running a small internet marketing business as my side business. This has helped me cut time when I’m free from my busy schedule. I really get satisfaction when I am my own boss.