Gay couple sues U.S. for discrimination. Cross posted from GD.

<snip>



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29481409/

Some valid marriages are being treated more equally than others.

eventually go to the SCOTUS then? Or do you think Obama will repeal DOMA before that happens?

then it would be over... who would appeal?

even considering its conservative leanings right now.

I have a few questions.. How long would it take a case like this to reach the SCOTUS? A few years at least? Just curious :9 Oh, and why is this the first major challenge to DOMA? Have any other lawsuits already been filed? Finally, this suit is challenging a specific provision of DOMA. If part of the act is determined to be unconstitutional, would the entirety of DOMA be struck down?

:toast:

Pres. Obama,

Look, I know you like us gays, but let's be honest, you like us from a far. You hear our cries for equality, but you also know that there is an election coming up. You and the Democrats are the same, you like us, but it is always with an awkward smile and distance.

Here is your chance... Let the courts do what you are to cowardly to do, let them do it and save your political capital for something else.

Your Justice Department will have to go in front of a court and tell them why you think it is okay to deny AMERICANS the rights they have dies for, but you are welcome to phone it in, if you really believe DOMA should be gone, then do not defend it, let the courts fix the issue for you.

This is a test Mr. Obama, your true colors are about to be on full display, if you defend this with the zeal that Bush would, I will remember come 2012.

Ioo

Maybe there's more detail in here?

Same-Sex Spouses File Major Lawsuit In Massachusetts Challenging The Ban On Federal Benefits


Today, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed the first concerted, multi-plaintiff legal challenge to Section 3 of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). GLAD is representing a group of LGBT plaintiffs who have been harmed by the federal refusal to recognize their marital rights. Under Section 3, legally married same-sex couples are excluded from any federal law or program that benefits other married individuals.

The consequence of Section 3 is that gays and lesbians have been denied spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and in the issuance of passports. In fact, there are 1,138 federal laws that confer rights and responsibilities based on marital status. In Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management — filed in federal District Court in Boston — the plaintiffs are arguing that Section 3 is unconstitutional on two grounds. From GLAD’s press release:



One of the plaintiffs in the case is Dean Hara, the surviving spouse of Gerry Studds, the late Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. Studds, the first openly gay congressman, married Hara in 2004, just one week after Massachusetts legalized marriage equality.

The federal government has denied Hara access to Studds’s congressional pension, health insurance, and other protections available to surviving spouses of federal employees. The only people who are ineligible for these benefits are same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, according to the Office of Personnel Management. If the federal government recognized the marriage, Hara would have been eligible for a lifetime annual pension of about $62,000, which would grow with inflation. Studds himself gave an impassioned speech against DOMA on July 11, 1996, specifically mentioning the potential harm of Section 3:




more...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/03/hara-glad-doma/