U.S. can’t treat married same-sex couples differently, judge rules

A key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, a federal district court judge in Connecticut ruled last week. 

Judge Vanessa L. Bryant said DOMA's definition of marriage, which bars numerous federal benefits for married same-sex couples, is impermissible under the Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to equal protection. Her ruling is expected to be appealed, though a number of other federal district and appellate courts have reached a similar conclusion.

House reinforces DOMA; Senate to consider repeal

Can't they see the writing on the wall?

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved an amendment to a defense appropriations bill reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits federal recognition of marriage to unions between a man and a woman. Six Republicans crossed party lines to vote against the measure, but 19 Democrats backed it. Meanwhile the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hear testimony on repealing DOMA in the next few weeks.

Bill Clinton, daughter endorse N.Y. marriage equality

Former President Bill Clinton has released a statement urging New York legislators to approve marriage rights for same-sex couples. 

"For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free. In the 21st century, I believe New York's welcome must include marriage equality," Clinton said. Clinton's daughter Chelsea also expressed support for marriage rights for gays and lesbians, adding that she hoped her straight friends would join her in speaking out. Gov. Andrew Cuomo is planning to travel the state to build support for a marriage-equality bill.

I've got mixed feelings on this. I mean, Clinton's the guy behind DOMA in the first place, right? So how much credit should he get for this and how much blame should he get for the whole mess in the first place?

How DOMA affects same-sex couples

Though some believe recent developments signal the end is near for the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law still has the power to inflict damage on same-sex couples in the U.S, experts say. 

Surviving partners can lose substantial income after the death of a loved one whose pension is not transferable under federal law; bi-national couples can face decisions about moving abroad to be able to stay together; and some couples' tax burden is double that of other married couples because they don't qualify as legal spouses under federal law, experts note.

DOMA Affects Legal Discrimination, Not Religious Liberty

Catholics for Equality Executive Director Phil Attey today released the following open letter to Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Archbishop Timothy Dolan
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Dear Archbishop Dolan:

It was with great disappointment that Catholics for Equality received the February 23, 2011 statement by Anthony R. Picarello, General Counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In this USCCB statement, Mr. Picarello makes attempts to mislead not only public policy makers, but our American Catholic community.

The USCCB statement asserts that President Obama's decision to no longer defend a law that is unconstitutional is "a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman." While we agree with Mr. Picarello that the majority of Americans reject unjust discrimination, it is misleading to suggest that American Catholics and the public at large holds a monolithic opinion on the morality of same-sex. Most opinions polls show the nation divided on this issue with rising support for marriage equality.

According to the 2010 Knights of Columbus/ Marist Poll 52% of U.S. Catholics support marriage equality including 63% of young adult Catholics. The shift among young Catholics will continue as more people accept their gay and lesbians siblings, friends, and co-workers as fully equal citizens and fellow Catholics. These polls also show that on this issue, American Catholics support marriage equality more than any other national Christian faith group.

Even more troubling is the assertion that the President's decision not to defend DOMA is unconstitutional is "a serious threat to the religious liberty of marriage supporters nationwide." Mr. Picarello, as a lawyer, knows that neither the repeal of DOMA, nor the passage of state marriage equality laws, in any way makes requirements on religious institutions or privately funded church organizations.

To testify otherwise in plain terms, Archbishop Dolan, is to bear false witness.

This is becoming an increasingly troubling pattern with our bishops when it comes to honesty around public policy on LGBT civil rights. Last year, Archbishop of the U.S. Military Services Timothy Broglio made similar falsehoods regarding the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, asserting that the repeal would require military chaplains to perform religious ceremonies contrary to their religious beliefs. This was blatantly untrue and Archbishop Broglio's statements were of great embarrassment to Catholics across the country when ruled to be unfounded by the Pentagon.

Catholics for Equality reached out to Archbishop Broglio, offering assistance in providing accurate information regarding the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and to answer any questions he might have. As faithful Catholics, we would like to extend that same offer to you and the USCCB regarding the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In Christ, and in the united stand for equality,

Phil Attey, Executive Director

Obama ends government's defense of DOMA, faces praise and criticism

President Barack Obama last week instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that restricts federal recognition of marriage to opposite sex couples. 

The move was hailed by LGBT rights groups, but some lawmakers accused Obama of abandoning his duty to defend laws passed by Congress. The administration's now-official position that laws discriminating against gays and lesbians deserve heightened scrutiny could have an effect on other LGBT rights issues as well.

Attorney General's Letter to Congress: No Defense for DOMA

The Attorney General sent the following letter today to Congressional leadership to inform them of the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman. The full copy of the letter can be seen after the jump.




The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Defense of Marriage Act

Dear Mr. Speaker:



After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, I am writing to advise you of the Executive Branch’s determination and to inform you of the steps the Department will take in two pending DOMA cases to implement that determination.



While the Department has previously defended DOMA against legal challenges involving legally married same-sex couples, recent lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 have caused the President and the Department to conduct a new examination of the defense of this provision. In particular, in November 2011, plaintiffs filed two new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny. Windsor v. United States, No. 1:10-cv-8435 (S.D.N.Y.); Pedersen v. OPM, No. 3:10-cv-1750 (D. Conn.). Previously, the Administration has defended Section 3 in jurisdictions where circuit courts have already held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to rational basis review, and it has advanced arguments to defend DOMA Section 3 under the binding standard that has applied in those cases.



These new lawsuits, by contrast, will require the Department to take an affirmative position on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section 3 in a circuit without binding precedent on the issue. As described more fully below, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.



Standard of Review



The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the appropriate level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation. It has, however, rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria that should inform this and any other judgment as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s “ability to perform or contribute to society.” See Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03 (1987); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 441-42 (1985).



Each of these factors counsels in favor of being suspicious of classifications based on sexual orientation. First and most importantly, there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today. Indeed, until very recently, states have “demean[ed] the[] existence” of gays and lesbians “by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003).



Second, while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable, see Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 101 (1992); it is undoubtedly unfair to require sexual orientation to be hidden from view to avoid discrimination, see Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (2010).



Third, the adoption of laws like those at issue in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), and Lawrence, the longstanding ban on gays and lesbians in the military, and the absence of federal protection for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation show the group to have limited political power and “ability to attract the [favorable] attention of the lawmakers.” Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445. And while the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act and pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell indicate that the political process is not closed entirely to gay and lesbian people, that is not the standard by which the Court has judged “political powerlessness.” Indeed, when the Court ruled that gender-based classifications were subject to heightened scrutiny, women already had won major political victories such as the Nineteenth Amendment (right to vote) and protection under Title VII (employment discrimination).



Finally, there is a growing acknowledgment that sexual orientation “bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973) (plurality). Recent evolutions in legislation (including the pending repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), in community practices and attitudes, in case law (including the Supreme Court’s holdings in Lawrence and Romer), and in social science regarding sexual orientation all make clear that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that generally bears on legitimate policy objectives. See, e.g., Statement by the President on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (“It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.”)



To be sure, there is substantial circuit court authority applying rational basis review to sexual-orientation classifications. We have carefully examined each of those decisions. Many of them reason only that if consensual same-sex sodomy may be criminalized under Bowers v. Hardwick, then it follows that no heightened review is appropriate – a line of reasoning that does not survive the overruling of Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 538 U.S. 558 (2003). Others rely on claims regarding “procreational responsibility” that the Department has disavowed already in litigation as unreasonable, or claims regarding the immutability of sexual orientation that we do not believe can be reconciled with more recent social science understandings. And none engages in an examination of all the factors that the Supreme Court has identified as relevant to a decision about the appropriate level of scrutiny. Finally, many of the more recent decisions have relied on the fact that the Supreme Court has not recognized that gays and lesbians constitute a suspect class or the fact that the Court has applied rational basis review in its most recent decisions addressing classifications based on sexual orientation, Lawrence and Romer. But neither of those decisions reached, let alone resolved, the level of scrutiny issue because in both the Court concluded that the laws could not even survive the more deferential rational basis standard.



Application to Section 3 of DOMA



In reviewing a legislative classification under heightened scrutiny, the government must establish that the classification is “substantially related to an important government objective.” Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). Under heightened scrutiny, “a tenable justification must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.” United States v. Virginia , 518 U.S. 515, 535-36 (1996). “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” Id. at 533.



In other words, under heightened scrutiny, the United States cannot defend Section 3 by advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.



Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).



Application to Second Circuit Cases



After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor and Pedersen, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.



Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.



As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute “in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,” as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001).



In light of the foregoing, I will instruct the Department’s lawyers to immediately inform the district courts in Windsor and Pedersen of the Executive Branch’s view that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section 3 of DOMA may not be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law. If asked by the district courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts determine that the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has taken in prior cases, a reasonable argument for Section 3’s constitutionality may be proffered under that permissive standard. Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.



Furthermore, pursuant to the President’s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.



A motion to dismiss in the Windsor and Pedersen cases would be due on March 11, 2011. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.



Sincerely yours,





Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General 


Obama Administration Drops Defense of DOMA

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today praised the Obama Administration’s decision not to continue its defense of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) in court.  DOMA denies federal recognition and benefits to legally married same-sex couples and purports to allow states to deny recognition to those couples as well.

“This is a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese.  “As the President has stated previously, DOMA unfairly discriminates against Americans and we applaud him for fulfilling his oath to defend critical constitutional principles.”

HRC has engaged in an effort to encourage the administration to abandon its defense of the statute for years, including writing to the President directly and encouraging our members and supporters to contact the administration as well.

Under federal law, the Department of Justice must report to Congress its intent not to defend the statute and it is likely that anti-LGBT leaders in Congress will take up its defense.

“Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law,” said Solmonese.  “The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize.  Instead Congress should take this opportunity to wipe the stain of marriage discrimination from our laws.”

DOMA, passed in 1996, denies married same-sex couples over 1,000 rights, benefits and responsibilities tied to marriage under federal law.  These include Social Security survivors' benefits, family and medical leave, equal compensation as federal employees, and immigration rights, among many others.

The GLBT Center of Colorado (The Center) released the following statement in light of the decision:

“The Center is excited for the recent announcement from D.C. that the Department of Justice will no longer actively defend Section 3 of DOMA,” said Mindy Barton, Legal Director for The Center “This makes it clear that progress toward equality is being made at every level in this country and that our government supports fairness for loving, committed couples regardless of sexual orientation.”

Federal judge allows another DOMA suit

Oakland, Calif., District Judge Claudia Wilken has rejected a Justice Department request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by married gay and lesbian couples who were prevented from purchasing long-term care insurance for their spouses. 

Wilken said prohibitions affecting same-sex couples contained in the Defense of Marriage Act and the Internal Revenue Code "do not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest."

Why won't the Justice Department let DOMA die?

The U.S. Department of Justice is arguing that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional, in spite of a district court's ruling to the contrary. DOJ lawyers filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Thursday, saying the law is "supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states." 

Come on, Justice Department, it's time to legalize gay already!

Federal challenges against DOMA

Two new lawsuits are set to be filed in federal court today challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and the American Civil Liberties Union each plan to bring a suit to court on behalf of legally married same-sex couples whose unions are not recognized under federal law. The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing a July federal court decision that found DOMA unconstitutional.

In 1996, fourteen senators voted against the Defense of Marriage Act ...

... now, a group affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage has released a campaign video targeting them for not protecting "states from having same-sex marriage imposed upon them."

Weak.

Weak and lame. - via GoodAsYou.org

DOMA in Obama's hands

Following a federal judge's ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, there has been much speculation about whether the Obama administration will appeal the ruling.

One former Justice Department official says that unless the Obama administration challenges the decision, it could set a precedent other administrations could someday use to ignore pro-LGBT federal laws.

"You could have a conservative Department of Justice that ... won't enforce all kinds of new protections for gays and lesbians because the attorney general doesn't agree with them. That's not a regime you want to live in," the former official notes.

DOMA declared unconstitutional?

The Human Rights Campaign – the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization – today praised the decisions of Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, declaring the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts couples under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. Judge Tauro, who was nominated to the bench by President Richard Nixon, held in Gill that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws, concluding that “indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.” These decisions are likely to be appealed by the Department of Justice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“Today’s decision is a confirmation of what every lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender American knows to be a basic truth – we, and our families, are equal,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “This is an important step forward, but there is a long path ahead before we see this discriminatory law consigned to the dustbin of history. We thank our friends at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, their courageous plaintiffs and Attorney General Coakley for standing up on behalf of married same-sex couples across the country and for their continued commitment to equality as these cases move forward. Judge Tauro’s decisions make clear that there is no constitutional justification for DOMA, despite the Department of Justice’s contentions in defending the statute. While we expect the Department to continue to defend DOMA on appeal, we urge the Obama administration to push Congress to repeal a law that we know, and Judge Tauro recognized, serves no purpose but to denigrate our families.”

In March 2009, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed Gill v. OPM on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts who have been denied federal rights and benefits available to spouses, but denied to them because DOMA, a federal law adopted in 1996, defines marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. In July 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed its own suit challenging the federal government’s requirement that in operating federally-funded programs, including Medicaid and the administration of veterans’ cemeteries, the state must treat some of its married citizens differently than others. There over 1,000 rights, benefits and responsibilities tied to marriage under federal law, including Social Security survivors' benefits, family and medical leave, equal compensation as federal employees, and immigration rights, among others.

DOMA is bad - here's why

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto explains GLAD’s legal challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Federal challenge to DOMA to be heard today

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese (left) issued the following statement today on the federal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is being heard today in Federal District Court in Boston. GLAD is seeking summary judgment before U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro on behalf of eight married same-sex couples and three widowers. Said Solmonese:

"DOMA continues to deny legally married same-sex couples and their families the same benefits, protections and respect every other married couple receives the day they marry. Six years ago, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to grant marriage equality under the groundbreaking Goodridge case brought by GLAD.

"Today, GLAD is before a federal court to argue that there is simply no justification for excluding the thousands of couples and families who are now legally married in Massachusetts. These families – and so many others in Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, California and, most recently, the District of Columbia – are denied basic protections like social security benefits, family leave, home protections and pensions.

"While we continue to work at HRC to chip away at those obstacles, it is clear that whether through the courts or through Congress, DOMA stands in the way of allowing families the full protection and security they deserve."

Support the Respect for Marriage Act and repeal DOMA!

Visit Project1138.com to email your Senators and Congressperson to support the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and provide same-sex marriage equality.

Gay couples pay more, get less than marrieds

A recent article in The New York Times details the bottom-line effects of the federal Defense of Marriage Act on gay and lesbian couples.

They even made a chart (above) and everything.

In almost every area, including health insurance, Social Security and estate taxes, same-sex couples will pay significantly more or receive fewer advantages than their married counterparts.

"It's pretty insulting," Philadelphia resident Harvey Hurdle said of the annual Social Security statements detailing how much a spouse would receive. said. "It says your spouse would get this much. And it's like, 'Oh no he won't!' "

Barney Frank not a fan of DOMA repeal legislation

Although a bill that would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act is set to be introduced today in the House with about 90 co-sponsors, it is considered to be more of a vehicle to "build momentum" for marriage equality than a bill with a chance of passage, according to this article.

Out U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., is not a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act because he believes the LGBT-rights bills with the best chances of success in this session are the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and a measure that would grant domestic-partnership benefits to federal workers.

Legislation introduced to repeal DOMA

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, hailed today the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) which would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and restore the rights of all lawfully married couples—including same-sex couples to receive the benefits of marriage under federal law. The bill also provides same-sex couples with certainty that federal benefits and protections would flow from a valid marriage celebrated in a state where such marriages are legal, even if a couple moves or travels to another state. The lead sponsors of the measure include Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO).

“The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a hurtful and cynical law enacted to discriminate against loving, committed same-sex couples,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, who also offered remarks at the introduction press conference. “It does real harm by denying thousands of lawfully-married same-sex couples the federal rights and benefits that only flow through marriage. Many of these include the protections couples turn to in times of need, like Social Security survivors’ benefits, medical leave to care for an ailing spouse and equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws. Today’s introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA is a welcome step, and as more states recognize the commitment of loving same-sex couples and their families, it's time for this law to go into the history books where it belongs.”

Earlier this month, HRC launched a national action alert, an interactive website, RepealDOMAnow.org, and delivered to Congress nearly 50,000 survey responses showing the concrete harms DOMA brings to the lives of LGBT Americans and their families. The survey was commissioned in August by the Human Rights Campaign and asked a series of questions on DOMA repeal. The results of the survey showed 70 percent of respondents consider the repeal of DOMA a “top priority.”

Through DOMA, which was signed into law 13 years ago, on September 21, 1996, the federal government singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them more than 1,100 federal protections and responsibilities – including Social Security and immigration benefits – that otherwise apply to married couples. This policy is discriminatory and harmful to families, preventing the government from honoring its legal commitments and the needs of families, even though these couples have assumed the obligations of civil marriage under state law and contribute as citizens and taxpayers.