Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Mass. married gays sue for federal benefits
03.03.2009 9:04am EST
(Boston, Massachusetts) Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she’s not allowed to check the “married filing jointly” box.
That’s because Ritchie and her spouse, Kathleen Bush, are a gay couple, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes them ineligible to file joint tax returns.Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance. Plaintiffs also include Dean Hara, the widower of former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of the House of Representatives.
In Ritchie’s case, she and her spouse say they have paid nearly $15,000 more in taxes than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.
“It saddens us because we love our country,” Ritchie said. “We are taxpayers. We live just like anyone else in our community. We do everything just like every other family, like every other married couple, and we are treated like less than that.”
The lawsuit was being filed Tuesday in federal court in Boston by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the anti-discrimination group that brought a successful legal challenge leading to Massachusetts becoming the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage in 2004.
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage. Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions.
Californians voted in November to overturn a court ruling that allowed gay marriage, but the state still offers domestic partnerships that guarantee the same rights as marriage. Hawaii is considering a bill that will allow same-sex civil unions.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The new lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples.
President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal DOMA and reverse the Department of Defense policy that prevents openly gay people from serving in the military.
Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project director, said the lawsuit is the first major challenge to the section of the law that denies same-sex couples access to more than 1,000 federal programs and legal protections in which marriage is a factor.
All the plaintiffs are from Massachusetts and have marriages that are recognized by the state. They 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.
“This law is an absolute intrusion into an area that states have governed for centuries – marriage,” Bonauto said.
In Hara’s case, he was denied any portion of Studds’ $114,000 pension after the Democratic congressman died in 2006. The two married in 2004 after being together for 14 years.
“I am not being treated the same as any other surviving spouse of any other federal employee or public servant who has served this country for 27 years, when I have been legally married,” Hara said.
Defendants in the lawsuit are the United States of America and several federal agencies, which are being represented by the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Obviously, we are going to take a look at it and make a determination as to how the government would ultimately respond after we review it,” DOJ spokesman Charles Miller said.
Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, said the lawsuit is a “plausible challenge” to DOMA.
“It’s a question of whether Congress oversteps its bounds and engages in irrational discrimination when it draws a line in terms of concrete benefits for individuals who are otherwise eligible simply because the marriages they have entered involve same-sex couples rather than opposite-sex couples,” he said.
Opponents of same-sex marriage say those who challenge DOMA are trying to impose gay marriage on the rest of the country.
“Massachusetts has made benefits available on a state level, but Massachusetts can’t force the federal government’s hand or the other states to accept same-sex marriage,” said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that says it’s dedicated to advancing religious freedom and the traditional family.
Please note all that in CA the Attorney General is NOT supporting prop 8 which is a huge move in our favor and a big slap to the proposition itself considering AG’s nearly always defend existing law, which prop 8 now is unfortunately.
In this federal case, the Department of Justice, lead by Eric Holder, has to decide whether or not to defend this law. It would be HUGELY prescedent setting if they decided to argue on our side, but given Obama’s campaign promises, they do not have a choice.
I urge everyone that supported the campaign to contact Holder and Obama immediately to tell them there is only one way to go on this: stick to your promises, do not defend DOMA, do not give the defense any federal assistance. Who is going to argue for DOMA in court if they do that? Nobody. It is the DOJ’s role and they should step aside.
george Said: “Why doesn’t the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution apply to gay citizens?”
It does apply, it just isn’t enforced. Apparently they can cherry pick which Constitutional rights when it suits their purpose. The Bush admin has a legacy of trampeling the Constitution in the name of freedom and democracy. The religous nutjobs have a history of trampeling in the name of religion. We should remember the Constitution is merely a lot of pretty words unless they are actively enforced.
Bud Evans said,
“My partner was an acting U.S. Postmaster in Kansas City Kansas; now he is on disability retirement after open heart surgery. I also have a severe medical condition. We have been together for thirty-four years and got legally married (in Canada) five years ago . We live in the Midwest, but we should also be entitled to federal benefits since my spouse worked for the US Postal Service for nearly thirty years. As it is now, we have to shell-out an additional $7,000 a year in medical insurance because we are unconstitutionally denied (as legal spouses) joint health care coverage which other married federal employees receive for their families.”
Bud, like I said above, marriages performed legally should ALL be recognized by the Government. You should be filing suit yourself if you haven’t already, and demand that your lawyer point out to the courts that you are being denied the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness.
It isn’t just Massachusetts, Connecticut, California and Iowa (why do gay people keep forgetting our own legal precedents?) legal marriages that should be Federally recognized; it’s also the legal marriages performed in other countries. Not a single heterosexual couple who have been legally married overseas (with the exception of polygamous marriages performed in those countries that allow it*, **) have not had their marriage acknowledged by the Government.
* Does anyone here know what the status would be of, say, a Muslim immigrant with 5 or 6 legal wives performed in his home country? What happens to the legal status of the ones who came after the first one?
** Of course, a man with more than one wife is no longer a “couple”.
Allen…I think you mean Kennedy (the moderate court justice). John Paul Stevens is reliably liberal.
Why doesn’t the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution apply to gay citizens?
Bud,
I’m not a technical person. If I could fix it myself I would. It is being worked on. Yes I know the pace is slow. When I learn something I’ll let you know.
Sincerely,
James
I’m all for using the courts to get recognition of our rights.
But I’m also painfully distrustful that the current make-up of the Supreme Court will see the issue our way.
You can guarantee that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas have already made up their minds about a case like this without even hearing the arguments. All they need is Stevens to side with them, and he’s not reliably moderate.
To the staff at 365gay.com: Please stop screening people like you are the Bush Administration. Every time I try to publish a comment under my real name, Bud Evans, your so-called “spam” program blocks my name and any comments that I have made. Please fix this, it is really annoying.
==============================
February 27th, 2009 at 11:22 am
James Withers Said:
“Bud…
Nothing strange really. For some reason the system puts the majority of your comments in the “pending for approval” section. We’ll get the tech department to clear that up.
Have a good day.
Sincerely,
James”
==============================
Well, James…you said that several weeks ago… and it is still happening.
Like today when I was responding to this article about how I am, as the spouse of a former federal employee, denied benefits as well and how that has affected by family’s life. My comments were “screened” and then “blocked” twice.
…So, why did your “spam filter” block those comments when your “spam filter” published them just seconds after I used a different name? That is just silly.
Why do I have to use different names each time in order to get my comments registered on this GLBT community board? That is hardly convenient when someone else is trying to respond to my comments and I can’t answer them because my handle keeps getting “blocked” by your program.
Can’t you see how annoying that is? Is there any reason you can’t fix this as you said you would?
My partner was an acting U.S. Postmaster in Kansas City Kansas; now he is on disability retirement after open heart surgery. I also have a severe medical condition. We have been together for thirty-four years and got legally married (in Canada) five years ago . We live in the Midwest, but we should also be entitled to federal benefits since my spouse worked for the US Postal Service for nearly thirty years. As it is now, we have to shell-out an additional $7,000 a year in medical insurance because we are unconstitutionally denied (as legal spouses) joint health care coverage which other married federal employees receive for their families.
In contrast to other modernized nations, the (un) United States of America
maintains her position as the foremost bigoted country of all the Western Democracies. Something to be really proud about. But bigots in America (of all races) continue to point to their irrational organized lynch-mob superstitions as a means to morally justify the ethically indefensible. The majority of the people in America are truly loathsome barbarians.
This country has been nothing but an embarrassment to human civilization from its inception. If we weren’t elderly and so poor, my spouse and I would head to Canada in a heartbeat.
==============================
In the article, a religious dogmatist wrote: “Massachusetts has made benefits available on a state level, but Massachusetts can’t force the federal government’s hand or the other states to accept same-sex marriage,” said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that says it’s dedicated to advancing religious freedom and the traditional family.
==============================
Sorry, Mathew Staver, you’re an idiot. We pay federal and state taxes; we are entitled to federal benefits and protections for our families too. If anyone is imposing themselves on others, it is the Bible-bigots who thrive on hate like ravenous maggots dining on excrement. They spread the disease of social inequality like plague carriers. They are festering pustules of anti-social disorder which should be legally de-fanged for both the security of our nation and for the health of our next generation.
~ B.Evans
Alan makes a great point; as a community, we accept the anti-glbt lobby’s erroneous terms for what they are trying to accomplish and, by our own parlance, support those who oppose us most.
Our opponents speak haughtily and often on the virtues of “traditional” marriage– referring of course to the aforementioned wife-dog-2.5 kids-picket fence– as if it were a longstanding american institution, mirrored around the world for centuries, yet earlier tradition describes something far different. Mounds of sociological and historical research (which I’m sure Staver filed unread in the same pile with the thousands of psychological reports he told C-PAC they needn’t read) indicates that the true tradition of marriage is one of economic exchange and political allegiance. In the bloody patriachal societies that arose out of the dark ages, women were chattle and marriages were a way to utilize women to ensure safety and security. Even in our own short national history, marriage for love or happiness was a relatively new idea as late as the second half of the 19th century. It was not until the postar economic boom, a scant 60 years ago,that America first saw marriage in the form the anti-glbt lobby calls traditional, and the nuclear marriage archetype only stood for 20 years until the social reforms of the 60s began to question its necessity and validity.
Keep in mind that the tradition of Christmas, as it is celebrated with relative homogenaeity, only found its form roughtly a century earlier, took hold more quickly, and has persisted more universally than the so-called traditional marriage. And many of us that celebrate it aren’t even christian.
Still, the tradition of christmas, even for those of us who don’t believe in christ, represents fair practice of our religious freedoms. As a Pagan, many of my holy days fall on days that are utterly unrecognized by mercantile society, yet law requires that my employer release me from attending work on these days. Thus, if my religion sanctions same sex marriage, it is a violation of my religious freedom to prohibit me from marrying. Staver and his ilk do not seek to protect the freedom of all religions to practice, merely their own.
The american idea of freedom is hard to pin down, and political philosophers far more sophisticated than I have tried and failed to codify it. I do not expect to succeed where they failed, but I think I can confidently elucidate at least one exclusion: american freedom does not guarantee anyone the freedom to take away the rights of another. Thus, we can outlaw murder, theft, and other basic antisocial behavior involving one group or individuals usurping the rights of others because such actions are contrary to universal freedom.
As seen in court cases nationwide, most recently the college student who sued his school when his anti gay marriage speech was ill recieved, the religious right demands that their religious freedom is tarnished when they are disallowed from impinging upon the religious rights of others. In Pennsylvania last year, a father sued his sons’ school district because the school wouldn’t let them harass glbt-friendly students, allegedly in violation of their religion’s edict that they proselytize. By the most basic and sophomoric definition of american freedom– my own– said edict is itself a violation in that it takes away the freedom of others.
So as a community, let’s start to use rhetoric to our advantage, dispense with new-pc terms like “traditional marriage” and “religious freedom” and embrace a national parlance that calls a spade a spade.
My partner was an acting U.S. Postmaster in Kansas City Kansas; now he is on disability retirement after open heart surgery. I also have a severe medical condition. We have been together for thirty-four years and got legally married (in Canada) five years ago . We live in the Midwest, but we should also be entitled to federal benefits since my spouse worked for the US Postal Service for nearly thirty years. As it is now, we have to shell-out an additional $7,000 a year in medical insurance because we are unconstitutionally denied (as legal spouses) joint health care coverage which other married federal employees receive for their families.
In contrast to other modernized nations, the (un) United States of America
maintains her position as the foremost bigoted country of all the Western Democracies. Something to be really proud about. But bigots in America (of all races) continue to point to their irrational organized lynch-mob superstitions as a means to morally justify the ethically indefensible. The majority of the people in America are truly loathsome barbarians.
This country has been nothing but an embarrassment to human civilization from its inception. If we weren’t elderly and so poor, my spouse and I would head to Canada in a heartbeat.
==============================
In the article, a religious dogmatist wrote: “Massachusetts has made benefits available on a state level, but Massachusetts can’t force the federal government’s hand or the other states to accept same-sex marriage,” said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that says it’s dedicated to advancing religious freedom and the traditional family.
==============================
Sorry, Mathew Staver, you’re an idiot. We pay federal and state taxes; we are entitled to federal benefits and protections for our families too. If anyone is imposing themselves on others, it is the Bible-bigots who thrive on hate like ravenous maggots dining on excrement. They spread the disease of social inequality like plague carriers. They are festering pustules of anti-social disorder which should be legally de-fanged for both the security of our nation and for the health of our next generation.
~ Bud Evans
http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com
What part of “all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law” part of America is confusing to the Supreme Court?
“dedicated to advancing religious freedom and the traditional family”
More like dedicated to Christian hegemony in American government and heterosexual domination of marriage rights.
Matthew Staver has had his time and his say. It’s time the US government moved past Staver and left him behind in the dust. This is a new century, but Staver hasn’t woken up to that fact and the fact that we have a whole new young generation coming into adulthood who think less and less like the Matthew Stavers of the world want them to think.
Many of these young people have had some contact with a friend, relative, neighbor, co-worker who happen to be gay.
And more and more young people as each new generation of young people become young adults, they are more accepting of gay people than the young people of the last few genrations. Matthew Staver, you are part of a shrinking antigay breed here in the USA and your influence is gradually shrinking over the passing years.
About time the “wall of antimarriage equality “apartheid” in the USA had a few cracks knocked into it, I will celebrate when that “wall” named the federal Defense of Marriage Act comes down and true equality begins to prevail in this land.
About this land beings to behave like a modern western democracy. Other lands have national marriage equality, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands and soon Sweden. Other lands have national civil unions or civil partnerships Uruguay, New Zealand, UK (maybe soon Eire aka Ireland)France, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Finland? Andorra (tiny Catalan-speaking country on the border between France and Spain)Czech Republic, Isreal, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary? Switzerland, etc. Civil union are also in Mexico city a Mexican state, a Brazilian state, Buenos Aires and in 1 or 2 Australian states Tasmania being one of those AU states.
Nepal was once in the news for having its government required to recognize rights for its gays including gay marriage. That could make it the 2nd country in Asia after Israel to grant grant national recognition to some formalized form of gay relationships.
USA “which used to be touted as the greatest country in the world has badly fallen behind other countries in different ways” with Canada’s economy and society better off than that of the USA and has a lot of catching up to do to other countries.
“Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that says it’s dedicated to advancing religious freedom and the traditional family.”
This quote from the article just begs me to ask WHO’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and WHAT TRADITIONAL FAMILY?
My religion is Wicca. So are they fighting for my religious freedom? I THINK NOT!
And I really hate to inform them that the traditional family hasn’t been around for at least four decades.
People like this live in a fantasy world.
The world of the 1950’s as shown on very old T.V. shows. Where the husband goes to work and the wife stays home to raise their 2.5 children. NOT ANY MORE.