DOMA

The day before last week's historic hearing on repealing the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), President Obama reiterated his commitment to fighting for LGBT equality. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney read a brief but important statement expressing the president’s support for the Respect for Marriage Act.

President Obama understands that the Respect for Marriage Act is about ensuring that all families are treated equally and with the dignity and respect they deserve.

The bill currently has 120 and 27 cosponsors in the House and Senate, respectively. Please contact your senators and representative and ask them to join the President in fighting to repeal DOMA and fulfilling the promise of equality for all.

Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy convened the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold the body's first ever hearing on the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages, was signed into law in 1996, and since then has had a tremendous impact on the lives of thousands of married gay and lesbian couples and their families.

In March, Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the discriminatory policies of DOMA and provide the same federal rights and benefits to same-sex married couples as their opposite-sex counterparts.

The three-panel hearing began with powerful and profound testimony from Rep. John Lewis, a leader of the Civil Rights movement. Calling DOMA a “stain on our democracy,” Lewis reaffirmed his continued commitment to fighting for the civil rights of all people, including gays and lesbians.

Representative Nadler echoed much of Lewis’ testimony, adding that DOMA hurts same-sex couples, especially those with children, because of the financial burdens that it places on them. Many of the witnesses in the second panel told stories of how the discriminatory law has been both a psychological and financial hardships for them and their spouses.

Because only two DOMA-supporting senators, Orin Hatch and Chuck Grassley, were willing to show up at the hearing, the task of arguing against the legislations repeal was left to some of the witnesses.

Edward Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center claimed that the fight for marriage equality and repeal of DOMA is part of the left’s plan to “path the way for polygamy and other polyamorous relationships,” ignoring the fact that no state to legalize marriage equality has seen any organized movement to legalize polygamy.

Thomas Minnery of Focus on the Family claimed research shows children raised in households headed by a same-sex couple were worse off than those in a “traditional family,” ignoring, well, just about every scrap of objective research on the subject. The research he was citing, however, was a study done by the Department of Health and Human Services, which in fact suggests children are better off with two parents regardless of their gender.

Watch Sen. Al Franken question Minnery’s misuse of the study below: 

The Senators asked the witnesses important questions about the very real and powerful harms DOMA has caused same-sex couples and their families. Many of their stories were heartbreaking and show the necessity for repealing this discriminatory law.

Contact your representative and senators and urge them to support the Respect for Marriage Act. All Americans deserve to be treated with fairness and dignity, and the Respect of Marriage Act would ensure that all Americans have access to the protections that only marriage can afford.

Last year, we wrote about Joshua Vandiver and Henry Velandia, a married couple who risked being separated because of discrimination in federal immigration laws. Vandiver, an American citizen, and Velandia, a Venezuelan, were married in Connecticut, but because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages, Vandiver was unable to sponsor Velandia for a green card, and Velandia was at risk of being deported.

Then, earlier this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement quietly closed the case against Velandia – in a move that could set a powerful precedent for how immigration officials deal with cases of married gay couples. From the New York Times:

In a decision that could have far-reaching effects on immigration cases involving same-sex couples, federal officials have canceled the deportation of a Venezuelan man in New Jersey who is married to an American man, the couple’s lawyer said Wednesday.

Josh Vandiver, left, and his husband, Henry Velandia, outside the immigration court in Newark on Friday.

The announcement comes as immigration officials put into effect new, more flexible guidelines governing the deferral and cancellation of deportations, particularly for immigrants with no serious criminal records.

Immigration lawyers and gay rights advocates said the decision represented a significant shift in policy and could open the door to the cancellation of deportations for other immigrants in same-sex marriages.

“This action shows that the government has not only the power but the inclination to do the right thing when it comes to protecting certain vulnerable populations from deportation,” said the couple’s lawyer, Lavi Soloway.

The case has been closely watched across the country by lawyers and advocates who viewed it as a test of the federal government’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Vandiver, a Princeton graduate student, and Velandia told their story in a video for the Daily Princetonian last year:

Prior to President Obama’s December 22, 2010 signing of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act, then House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD5) had this to say about the American promise of equality for all.

Nearly six months later, Minority Leader Hoyer’s message about fundamental rights being “self-evident, but not self-executing” rings true. Even as military leaders are working hard to train the troops for repeal implementation, and reporting back success:

Repeal opponents want to disrupt the mission through the FY12 Defense Authorization bill.

• Section 533 – Slow down repeal by adding the service chiefs to the certification process. A thoughtful process is already in place. Repeal must be certified by the President, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in order for it to go into effect, and even then there is 60-day waiting period prior to the full policy change. These Administration officials are the men tasked with setting military policy. The services chiefs will advise as appropriate, but are ultimately tasked with executing the policies set at the Administration level.

• Section 534 – Enshrine DOMA within the military and the DOD civilian corps. DOMA is unconstitutional. The courts agree. So do President Obama and the Attorney General. With DOMA’s future, at the very least, up for review, if not wholly in doubt, it would be foolish to reaffirm it now.

• Section 535 – Restrict the right of chaplains and other military and civilian personnel, and the use of DOD property, to perform marriage ceremonies. When DADT repeal takes effect, even if DOMA remains in place, there is no reason why these personnel and facilities shouldn’t be available to same-sex couples whose marriages are recognized at the state level. We wouldn’t force individual chaplains to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, but we also shouldn’t restrict their ability if they wish to do so.

The Senate version of the bill is expected to be taken up by the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. Please help us make clear to the subcommittee and full committee that we want to keep repeal on track and free of harmful amendments.

Before I go, a special shout out to our friends at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for demonstrating that servicemembers are still waiting. We’re all still waiting. We need swift certification and effectuation of DADT repeal.

This morning, Rep. Trent Franks, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, called a hearing on “Defending Marriage” to examine the Obama Administration’s decision to stop defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in courts.

Franks is pretty, um, far to the right, so it’s no surprise that one of the three witnesses he called to the hearing was Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage.

As Justin wrote earlier, Gallagher hit a bunch of the big themes of the Religious Right’s anti-gay activism, but she also dwelled on one argument peculiar to the anti-marriage equality crowd: that marriage exists solely as a structure for procreation:

If we accept, as DOMA explicitly does, that this is a core purpose of marriage, then treating same-sex unions as marriages makes little sense. If marriage as a public and legal institution is oriented towards protecting children by increasing the likelihood they are born to and raised by the man and the woman whose union made them, then same-sex couples do not fit. If same-sex couples “fit” the public definition of marriage, then marriage is no longer about responsible procreation. Same-sex marriage cuts marriage as a public idea off from these deep roots in the natural family. Over time the law will re-educate the next generation that these ancient and honorable ideals underlying marriage no longer apply. Gay marriage, as Judge Walker ruled in wrongly striking down Prop 8, is based on the idea that neither biology nor gender matters to children. Same-sex marriage repudiates the public’s interest in trying to see that children are, to the extent possible, raised by the man and woman whose bodies made them in a loving single family.

The argument that marriage exists solely for having children is, needless to say, flimsy – and has been pretty well demolished in a few marriage equality trials. I’m just going to share this extended exchange from last year’s Proposition 8 trial, in which Judge Vaughn Walker reduces the lawyer defending Prop 8 into babbling incoherence as he tries to defend the marriage-is-only-for-procreation argument:

THE COURT: And my point was that there are a number of heterosexual couples who do not naturally procreate, who require the intervention of some third party or some medical assistance of some kind.

MR. COOPER: Yes, your Honor. And it is not those opposite-sex couples either that the state is concerned about in terms of -- in terms of the threats to society and the natural concerns that society has from irresponsible procreation.

THE COURT: What's the threat to society of people choosing to have medical assistance in order to conceive children?

MR. COOPER: There isn't one there, your Honor. I mean, it's -- it is the -- again, it's irresponsible procreation. The procreation that comes about casually. And often again, as the Eighth Circuit put it, often by accident, unintentionally, unintentionally. The opposite-sex couple where one of the partners is infertile, for example, or the same-sex couple can't unintentionally procreate, but for reasons that we discussed earlier with respect to the opposite sex but infertile couple, allowing them to marry isn't something that is inconsistent with the purposes of -- the core procreative purposes of marriage and, in fact, in certain respects it advances those purposes and it would just not be possible or realistic, as case after case has said, for the state to try to implement its policy on a more narrow or fitted basis.

And, your Honor, with respect to -- and you asked a question about this in your written questions. Even with respect to the opposite-sex couple where one of the partners is infertile, encouraging that couple to get married, trying to channel that couple into marriage furthers the procreative purposes and policies underlying the traditional definition of marriage in the sense that if that couple gets married, then it -- then all of the social norms that come with marriage to encourage that couple to stay together and to be faithful to one another operate to society's benefit in the sense that the fertile member of that couple will be less likely to engage in sexual relationships with third parties and raise anew a threat of some type of unintentional or what I have been referring to previously as irresponsible procreation.

THE COURT: Why don't those same values, which are values to society that you have described, apply to lesbian couples and gay couples? Coming together, supporting one another, taking care of one another, looking out for one another, being an economic unit, being a social unit, providing love, comfort and support for one another, why don't all of those considerations apply just as much to the plaintiffs here as they apply to John and Jane Doe, to use the names that Reverend Tam used.

MR. COOPER: Those purposes, your Honor, are – we haven't suggested there is a distinction among gay and opposite-sex couples with respect to those considerations. There is a distinction, however, with respect to the fundamental procreative purpose, responsible procreative purpose of marriage; and that is that the gay couple, unlike the opposite-sex couple where one of the partners may be infertile, doesn't represent -- neither partner in the – with respect to the same-sex couple is -- again, assuming homosexual sexual orientation -- represents a concern about irresponsible procreation with a third party.

To summarize, Cooper, when pressed on the issue, ended up arguing that opposite-sex couples should get married so they don’t go around “irresponsibly procreating” with people they aren’t married to…but same-sex couples aren’t in danger of irresponsibly procreating, so they don’t need to get married….and that somehow, if gay couples were to get married, they would drive heterosexuals away from marriage, resulting in them having babies out of wedlock.

To be clear, this is the primary argument that opponents of marriage equality have in their toolkit.
 

Rick Santorum has an op-ed against marriage equality in the Des Moines Register that is breathtaking in its dishonesty.

In order to target a Republican base that has lurched further and further from reality, he writes about a world that simply doesn't exist.

One of the most easily disproved inaccuracies: He writes that President Obama is refusing to enforce DOMA. That is flat out false; the administration now refuses to defend DOMA in court, but it has made it clear in both word and deed that it will continue to enforce the law. While the idea of a president unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional and simply pretending it doesn't exist plays into the Republican base's deluded image of Barack Obama as a totalitarian dictator, it bears no relation to reality.

If Santorum knows that what he is writing about DOMA is false, he lacks the basic moral qualifications to be president. And if he doesn't know that it's false, he needs to reassure voters that someone whose operation does not engage in even the most rudimentary fact-checking can be trusted to make the critical policy decisions a president must make every day. He also owes a public apology to the American people and to the president.

Similarly, Santorum's description of the arguments made by proponents of marriage equality bears no relationship to reality. He says that equality advocates fail to "make a reasoned case providing evidence about such things as the effects on children, traditional marriage, faith, school curriculum and public health." Among the many items from the reality-based world that the former senator simply pretends don't exist is the federal district court opinion striking down Proposition 8. In great detail, Judge Vaughn Walker's 136-page opinion goes through the evidence on these and other matters presented both by proponents and opponents of the right to marry. Those sharing Santorum's position had their evidence heard and carefully considered against the evidence presented by equality advocates. The result was that Judge Walker forcefully and persuasively rejected the arguments against marriage equality.

Santorum's distorted depiction of the world may play well with those on the right who ignore any fact contradicting their self-image as heroic freedom fighters under siege. However, the rest of the country would prefer an honest debate of the issues.

The Justice Department today refused to step in to prevent the deportation Genesio Oliveira, a Brazilian man recently reunited with his husband, an American citizen, in Massuchusetts. In March, Oliveira and his husband followed the procedure to obtain a green card for Oliveira, as the immigrant spouse of an American citizen. But because the Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, they were out of luck.

Oliveira’s case became a high-profile cause after his husband, Tim Coco, invested in ads to bring attention to the couple’s plight. Senator John Kerry also took up the case.

Coloradoan Joshua Vandiver and his Venezualan husband Henry Velandia face the same legal roadblock. Watch them tell their story:

In June, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled unconstitutional the section of DOMA that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, finding that the law was motivated simply by “irrational prejudice.” The Obama Administration has appealed the ruling.
 

An appeals court ruled this morning that the DC City Council has every right to refuse to hold a referendum aimed at shooting down the city’s four-month-old marriage equality law.

The push to end DC’s marriage law was led by Bishop Harry Jackson, an anti-gay activist who has allied with national right-wing groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council in his quest to undo the law.

The DC Council refused to let Jackson introduce a referendum to ban gays from marrying in the District, citing a policy that prohibits ballot intiatives to authorize discrimination. In January, a lower court agreed with the Council, and today the DC Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The Appeals Court’s decision was split 5-4, but the judges were unanimous on one key point: that Jackson’s referendum constituted discrimination.

The DC Council passed the marriage equality law in an 11-2 vote in December; marriage licenses became available in March.

All in all, it’s been a good July for marriage equality.
 

This week, there was a new development in a California case where a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in February ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The Los Angeles Times reports the new development:

In a legal end-run around the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a federal judge Wednesday ordered compensation for [Brad Levenson,] a Los Angeles man denied federal employee benefits for his spouse because they are both men. ...

[In February, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen] Reinhardt, who is responsible for resolving employee disputes for public defenders within the 9th Circuit, had ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to process Levenson's application for spousal benefits. But the federal Office of Personnel Management stepped in to derail the enrollment, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal government recognition of same-sex marriage.

Levenson appealed, seeking either an independently contracted benefits package for Sears or compensation for the costs they incurred in the absence of coverage. Reinhardt ordered the latter, based on a back pay provision in the law governing federal defenders' employment.

As reported on this blog back in February, this case is less than it might seem at first blush. DOMA remains the law of the land. Rather than being a traditional court case, this is an internal employee grievance procedure within the office of federal public defenders of the Ninth Circuit. As a result, the judge is not acting in his capacity as a judge. Instead, he is acting in his capacity as the designated administrative decision-maker for the Ninth Circuit's Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders.

Since it's not a traditional court case, it imposes no binding precedent and is not going to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the new order does add an important new element to the conversation over DOMA's constitutionality. And coming from a federal circuit court judge, its reasoning has resonance, even if it is not binding precedent.

In the new order, Judge Reinhardt repeats his February analysis of DOMA's constitutional infirmities, rejecting various arguments in its favor. He also addresses a new argument and determines that it, too, fails under the rational basis level of scrutiny, the easiest of standards to meet:

Recently, the government has advanced an additional argument in defense of DOMA: that the statute serves a legitimate governmental interest in maintaining a consistent definition of marriage at the federal level for purposes of distributing federal benefits while individual states consider how to resolve the issue of marriage equality for same-sex couples. ... Even under the more deferential rational basis review, however, this argument fails. DOMA did not preserve the status quo vis-à-vis the relationship between federal and state definitions of marriage; to the contrary, it disrupted the long-standing practice of the federal government deferring to each state's decisions as to the requirements for a valid marriage. ...

Congress thus sided with those states that would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, and against those states that would recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Taking that position did not further any government interest in neutrality, if indeed such an interest exists.

And just where did this additional argument come from? From Barack Obama's very own Justice Department.

Equality cannot wait. It's time to dump DOMA.