Gay Mass. couples sue for Fed. Benefits

The title of this entry links to the ABC news story.

It was only a matter of time before something like this was going to happen. Gay married couples in Massachusetts are suing the Federal Government for their rights as legally married couples. This phenomenon is something that legal scholars around the country have been predicting will happen and now it has. The complaints take on a wide range in this case and appear to be a combination of several different complaints by gay couples throughout the country and could have far-reaching ramifications.

At the heart of the issue is yet another Clinton-era blunder on the rights of LGBT people in this country: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA covers a wide range of rights that second-class gay citizens might try to acquire if ever they somehow gained the right of marriage in a state (DOMA was enacted rapidly when it appeared that Hawaii might grant same-sex marriage rights to gays). The first thing that it does is make it possible for one state to not recognize a same-sex union from another state (a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is not recognized as such in Idaho, for instance). The second thing it does is prevent the Federal Government from extending marriage rights to gay married couples. While a same-sex marriage is fully legal in Massachusetts the state can only extend the handful of marriage rights to same-sex couples which it controls, it cannot extent rights such as Social Security, citizenship and the very numerous rights which the Federal Government grants to married couples.

This lawsuit will seek to attack only the second part of DOMA, which prohibits Uncle Sam from extending rights. What the couples are seeking is the Social Security death benefit, property and inheritance rights and spousal status for Federal employees. Though a same-sex marriage is just that in Massachusetts and a Federal employee who is married in that state with full legal state recognition the state cannot force the persons employer (in this case the Federal Government) to extend benefits such as retirement and health insurance to the legal spouse of the employee.

This lawsuit has been a long time coming and hopefully will be met with ultimate success but I can guarantee it will be along process that will eventually end up at the highest court in the land. The basic premise of the lawsuit, from my vantage point, is that the Federal Government is doing two things by not extending these benefits to legally married couples: first off they are infringing upon the state's right to govern; and secondly they are actively harming the life and well being of United States Citizens. Legal organizations have been waiting for years for the political climate to shift in Washington DC to file these suits. Years ago I was approached casually about whether my then-husband (married in the church but not in the state), would be willing to participate in such a lawsuit since I am a Federal employee. Now that I am no longer married I saw no point in seeking out to join the potential class-action lawsuit.

If successful this lawsuit will invalidate part of DOMA. It is the second section of DOMA which many believe infringes upon a state's right to govern. The first part of DOMA actually protects state's rights by not forcing them to recognize marriage laws passed in other states. The huge upside is that if the Supreme Court can be swayed to grant benefits for Federal employees who are married in one state but not another the Federal Government will then be forced to find a way to extend the same benefits to domestic partners in other states, whether they are officially recognized or not. It is an exciting legal situation that has far-reaching ramifications for the millions of Federal employees (counting the military and Veterans) who are LGBT.