Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), a New England-based LGBT rights group, filed a challenge to the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of eight same sex spouses and three widowers. The suit filed on May 6, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, challenges DOMA's definition of marriage as between a man and woman for all federal legal purposes. GLAD argues that DOMA discriminates against married same-sex couples and violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
Significantly, GLAD filed its DOMA challenge in a Boston court. Same sex marriage in Massachusetts has been legal since 2004. Since then, LGBT rights organizations have stepped up efforts for legalizing gay marriage in other states, while GLAD has sought equal marriage benefits on the federal level for married Massachusetts couples.
GLAD also filed and won Goodridge v. Department of Health, the case that legalized same sex marriage in Massachusetts.
DOMA Prohibits Marriage Benefits for Gay Couples
The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1996, prohibits same-sex married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits that are given to heterosexual couples, including access to a spouse's social security, pension and health insurance plans.
In addition, no state is obligated to recognize another state's legalization of same sex marriage. Since DOMA's passage, dozens of states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage and forbidding the recognition of those performed in other jurisdictions. Five states -- including Massachusetts -- and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.
DOMA Challenge Could Affect Same Sex Marriage in Massachusetts -- and Beyond
LGBT rights groups and legal advocates have long sought to challenge DOMA in federal court and achieve a repeal.
Attorneys for GLAD present a three-sided argument in Gill:
- DOMA discriminates against married same sex couples by singling them out to receive different treatment under the law, a violation of the equal protection clause
- By regulating marriage, DOMA presents an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into states' rights
- DOMA unfairly burdens the marriages of gay couples by denying marriage benefits and infringes their right to family integrity
Department of Justice attorney W. Scott Simpson, defending the legality of DOMA, argued that "individual states may experiment in the area of marriage" with DOMA in place. He emphasized the constitutionality of the law while asserting the Obama administration's opposition to it. (During his campaign for president, Obama told LGBT rights groups of his desire to repeal both DOMA and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.)
