DADT and DOMA

[Tekania]

The good news, looks like DADT is going... The bad news, Military Members entering into same-sex partnerships will still lack many benefits open to married heterosexual partners thanks in part to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Gay Benefit Rules Drafted; Debt Panel Targets 'TFL'

The long-awaited study on gays in the military serving openly not only takes the pulse of the force on the issue -- concluding change can occur with little risk to readiness -- but also details how it will work in practice.

Will service members with same-sex partners qualify for the higher "with dependents" housing allowance rate? No.

Will same-sex partners qualify for military health coverage? No.

What if a gay couple is legally married in a state allowing such unions?

Still no, because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal program purposes, as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and defines "spouse" to mean " a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Because this law bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, it also blocks spousal benefits for gay partners across hundreds of federal programs including many military benefits. There are, however, active court challenges.

Will servicemembers with same-sex partners be eligible for on-base family housing? Legally, that could be allowed. It is already for gay civilian employees working for some federal agencies. But the study advises against opening military base housing to such arrangements.

Will gay members be able to designate partners as beneficiaries of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and federal Thrift Savings Plans? Yes.

Will same-sex partners be eligible for base shopping, family support programs, legal assistance, space-available travel and relocation assistance when members move to new assignments?

(Full article here.)

So now that the contest against DADT is almost at an end, is it time to finally take on (and down) DOMA?

Personally, I say yes. This piece of legislation stands in the way of gay-Americans, including now gay-servicemembers from enjoying the full benefits (including dependent benefits) of their service to our country.

[Ifreann]

Even when the US does it right, it's doin it rong.

[Kalysk]

"Defense of Marriage"? Do we live in fucking Iran or something?

[Tekania]

"Defense of Marriage"? Do we live in fucking Iran or something?

Personally I fail to see how federal legislation whose sole purpose is to limit the recognition of state marriages between states and the federal government overall is somehow a "Defense" of marriage... More like The should be called the "Assault Against Marriage For Gays Act", though AAMFGA doesn't roll off the tongue as well as DOMA.

[South Lorenya]

Redefine marriage to be "Two consenting adults who love each other". Problem solved.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I remember that activist judges struck down the "marriage is between a man and a woman" part... Or was it another part of the marvelous but vulnerable act?

[South Lorenya]

I remember that activist judges struck down the "marriage is between a man and a woman" part... Or was it another part of the marvelous but vulnerable act?

No, that anti-marvelous and vulnerable act is still on the books, somehow.

[Ifreann]

Redefine marriage to be "Two consenting adults who love each other". Problem solved.

Legislating love is going to be murder.....

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I remember that activist judges struck down the "marriage is between a man and a woman" part... Or was it another part of the marvelous but vulnerable act?

No, that anti-marvelous and vulnerable act is still on the books, somehow.

In 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt declared DOMA unconstitutional in an employment dispute resolution tribunal, where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson.[30] As an employee of the federal judiciary, Levenson is prohibited from suing his employer in federal court. Rather, employment disputes are handled at employment dispute resolution tribunals in which a federal judge hears the dispute in their capacity as a dispute resolution official.

Several challenges[citation needed] to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but so far the Court has declined to review any such case. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.[citation needed] Only Iowa,[31] California, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.

On March 9, 2009, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States of America in Orange County, California, seeking to reverse DOMA and California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.[32] On June 12, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a brief in the case defending the constitutionality of DOMA.[33]

On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a federal court challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government's heretofore consistent deference to each state's definition of marriage. The case questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[34][35] On May 6, 2010, Judge Joseph L. Tauro heard arguments in the U.S. District Court in Boston.[36]

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a suit, Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."[37] Judge Tauro heard arguments in Massachusetts on May 26, 2010.

On July 8, 2010, Judge Tauro issued his rulings in both Gill and Massachusetts, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs in both cases. He found in Gill that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Massachusetts he held that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.[3][4] Those decisions were automatically stayed for two weeks by federal court rules and were stayed further after the Department of Justice entered an appeal on October 12, 2010.[38]

I see... Activist judges can't get their way sometimes

[Innsmothe]

No, that anti-marvelous and vulnerable act is still on the books, somehow.

In 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt declared DOMA unconstitutional in an employment dispute resolution tribunal, where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson.[30] As an employee of the federal judiciary, Levenson is prohibited from suing his employer in federal court. Rather, employment disputes are handled at employment dispute resolution tribunals in which a federal judge hears the dispute in their capacity as a dispute resolution official.

Several challenges[citation needed] to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but so far the Court has declined to review any such case. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.[citation needed] Only Iowa,[31] California, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.

On March 9, 2009, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States of America in Orange County, California, seeking to reverse DOMA and California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.[32] On June 12, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a brief in the case defending the constitutionality of DOMA.[33]

On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a federal court challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government's heretofore consistent deference to each state's definition of marriage. The case questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[34][35] On May 6, 2010, Judge Joseph L. Tauro heard arguments in the U.S. District Court in Boston.[36]

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a suit, Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."[37] Judge Tauro heard arguments in Massachusetts on May 26, 2010.

On July 8, 2010, Judge Tauro issued his rulings in both Gill and Massachusetts, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs in both cases. He found in Gill that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Massachusetts he held that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.[3][4] Those decisions were automatically stayed for two weeks by federal court rules and were stayed further after the Department of Justice entered an appeal on October 12, 2010.[38]

I see... Activist judges can't get their way sometimes

How can they be 'activists' if they are nought but following the constitution?

[Unchecked Expansion]

I see... Activist judges can't get their way sometimes

Stop describing judges you don't agree with as 'activist'. It makes your arguments look weak and petty. They just do their jobs. As do the ones I disagree with, even if I dislike their ideas

[Ashmoria]

i guess that has to be the next battle.

when a married gay couple from massachusetts ends up being split up when one is deployed outside the state they can prove that DOMA has definitely harmed them.

DOMA is bad law that never should have been passed.

[Tekania]

i guess that has to be the next battle.

when a married gay couple from massachusetts ends up being split up when one is deployed outside the state they can prove that DOMA has definitely harmed them.

DOMA is bad law that never should have been passed.

Oooo, that most certainly would provide them was standing. Come on DADT repeal... next comes DOMA repeal! WooT!

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

i guess that has to be the next battle.

when a married gay couple from massachusetts ends up being split up when one is deployed outside the state they can prove that DOMA has definitely harmed them.

DOMA is bad law that never should have been passed.

I thought it didn't apply outside their own state.

Yes, it should have been replaced by the Federal Marriage Amendment so that the likes of Souter and Ginsburg can't get anywhere near it.

[South Lorenya]

Redefine marriage to be "Two consenting adults who love each other". Problem solved.

Legislating love is going to be murder.....

I'm no lawyer; I'm sure people who are can find a proper wording for my suggestion, though.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Legislating love is going to be murder.....

I'm no lawyer; I'm sure people who are can find a proper wording for my suggestion, though.

Two consenting adults should cover it fine

[Tekania]

How can they be 'activists' if they are nought but following the constitution?

It makes sense when you realize "Judicial Activism" is the Right-Wing label for a case where a Judge (or Judges in the case of many appeals courts) rule by law rather than how they would like them to.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I see... Activist judges can't get their way sometimes

Stop describing judges you don't agree with as 'activist'. It makes your arguments look weak and petty. They just do their jobs. As do the ones I disagree with, even if I dislike their ideas

Nah, to me, any judge who wants to change the status quo to a state that was previously unallowed for a long time is "activist". I'm sure liberal in my use of words. I have nothing against activism that seeks to uphold a correct, truthful and originalist interpretation of the law.

[Georgism]

Redefine marriage to be "Two consenting adults who love each other". Problem solved.

Why do you hate Hollywood?

[Ifreann]

Legislating love is going to be murder.....

I'm no lawyer; I'm sure people who are can find a proper wording for my suggestion, though.

I think "An exclusive legal relationship between consenting adults with the following benefits: [benefits of marriage]" would work. Well, something like that.

[Tekania]

i guess that has to be the next battle.

when a married gay couple from massachusetts ends up being split up when one is deployed outside the state they can prove that DOMA has definitely harmed them.

DOMA is bad law that never should have been passed.

I thought it didn't apply outside their own state.

Yes, it should have been replaced by the Federal Marriage Amendment so that the likes of Souter and Ginsburg can't get anywhere near it.

And luckily the only thing that scares more Republicans than gays getting married, is the Federal government exercising complete control over the who individual states are allowed to marry.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Stop describing judges you don't agree with as 'activist'. It makes your arguments look weak and petty. They just do their jobs. As do the ones I disagree with, even if I dislike their ideas

Nah, to me, any judge who wants to change the status quo to a state that was previously unallowed for a long time is "activist". I'm sure liberal in my use of words. I have nothing against activism that seeks to uphold a correct, truthful and originalist interpretation of the law.

Any judge?
So you'd rather have kept Jim Crow laws, disenfranchised women and prohibition?

[The Rich Port]

This is what we get for electing a stetson-wearing chimpanzee into office.

._. And my dipshit parents voted for him.

[OuroborosCobra]

While I would like to see the Defense of Marriage Act taken down...I don't want to see this one become a military policy fight. DADT is genuinely a policy targeted at the military, effecting just the military (well, basically). The fight over it should be about the military.

Defense of Marriage Act does not target the military intentionally. It targets the entire nation. The military just happens to be effected along with everyone else.

Then again, the same was true with segregation laws following Plessy v. Ferguson, and the military was among the roads leading the way to ending those policies, long before they were lifted for the general public.

[Tekania]

Stop describing judges you don't agree with as 'activist'. It makes your arguments look weak and petty. They just do their jobs. As do the ones I disagree with, even if I dislike their ideas

Nah, to me, any judge who wants to change the status quo to a state that was previously unallowed for a long time is "activist". I'm sure liberal in my use of words. I have nothing against activism that seeks to uphold a correct, truthful and originalist interpretation of the law.

Yes, things which attempt to change the status quo to a state which was previously unallowed.... like people being allowed to elect their leaders, or hold public opinions contrary to what the rulers say those opinions will be.