- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- March 2009
- October 2006
- July 2002
America's Leading Gay News Source
Gay troops challenge DOMA in federal lawsuit
Gay troops and veterans joined the fight against the Defense of Marriage Act in court on Thursday by filing new litigation challenging the law on the basis that it precludes service members with same-sex partners from receiving crucial benefits.
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network filed the lawsuit, called McLaughlin v. Panetta, behalf of eight plaintiff couples in the District Court of Massachusetts. In addition to challenging DOMA, the litigation also challenges Title 10, Title 32 and Title 38 of U.S. Code, which prevents the military from providing benefits to the partners of gay troops.
Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, said during a news conference at the National Press Club that troops involved in the lawsuit are ”seeking equal recognition, benefits and family support for their same-sex spouses that the services and the Department of Veterans Affairs provides to their straight married peers.”
“The case we are bringing is about one thing, plain and simple,” Sarvis said. “It’s about justice for gay and lesbian service members and their families in our armed forces rendering the same military service, making the same sacrifices and taking the same risks to keep our nation secure at home and abroad.”
Federal law prohibits the U.S. government from providing numerous benefits to gay troops. According to SLDN, among them are health insurance benefits, surviving spouse benefits and the issuance of military identification cards.
The lead plaintiff is Army Maj. Shannon McLaughlin, a judge advocate general who serves in the Massachusetts National Guard as chief of legal assistance and is a judge advocate general. She has served for 13 years and is married to her partner of more than three years, Casey McLaughlin. The two are raising ten-month old twins: Grace and Grant McLaughlin.
“For us, this inequity means that Casey is not eligible for health insurance and is unable to come onto post to make use of facilities services and family support that otherwise would be available if we were of the opposite sex,” Shannon McLaughlin said. “It boils down to this: we’ve been serving our country too long, working too hard and sacrificing too much to see our families denied the same recognition, support and benefits as our straight, married counterparts.”
Another plaintiff is Capt. Stephen Hill, an Army reservist of 18 years who gained notoriety after FOX News played his video question on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during a Republican presidential debate last month. Hill was booed by the audience, which sparked controversy over why none of the candidates condemned the booing while on stage.
Joshua Snyder, Hill’s spouse, said during the news conference FOX News didn’t play all of Hill’s question and the service member went on to ask about whether the GOP candidates would institute partner benefits for gay troops.
“Those questions went unanswered that night, and they will not be answered by the political process for quite some time,” Snyder said. “So, today, Steve and I have elected to take another route, the judicial route. We believe strongly that DOMA and laws like it ignore our families and treat us less than our [straight] married counterparts. They are an injustice and that’s why we’re here today.”
High-ranking members of the Obama administration are named in the lawsuit: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, deferred comment on the specifics of the litigation to the Justice Department as he reiterated President Obama’s support for legislation to address the issue.
“I would note that the President has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,’” Inouye said. “He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act, which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”
The Obama administration has stopped defending DOMA in court, so it’s likely the Justice Department will side with the plaintiffs in this case. Spokespersons for the departments involved in the litigation said the lawsuit remains under review.
Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokesperson said, “We will carefully evaluate the complaint and we will consult [the Justice Department.] In the meantime, we will continue to follow the law.”
Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesperson, said her department is “reviewing the complaint.”
Randy Noller, a VA spokesperson, said, ”Once an appeal is filed, VA lawyers will analyze the legal arguments made by the appellant and respond appropriately in its briefs.”
Serving as SLDN’s pro-bono counsel in the case are Abbe Lowell and Christopher Man, attorneys at Chadbourne & Parke.
During the news conference, Man said previous rulings against DOMA in Massachusetts in will help in moving the litigation forward. A district court in the state ruled against the anti-gay law in two separate cases last year.
“A lot of the work that was necessary for us to move forward has already been done in that court,” Man said. “That court has already briefed the issues; they’re familiar with it. So, it made sense to go ahead and file it rather than reinvent the wheel before another court.”
Asked about the timeline for the lawsuit, Man said he plans to file a motion for summary judgment soon and hopes the district court will rule within “a few months.”
“The court has already ruled on the constitutionality of DOMA, it wouldn’t be very hard for it to apply that same analysis to our case,” Man said. “And because the president and the attorney general have indicated they will no longer be defending DOMA, it shouldn’t be must of a contest.”
The litigation is one among several lawsuits challenging DOMA that are making their way through the judicial system. In two cases, Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, plaintiffs were set to file a reply with the U.S. First Circuit of Appeals on the same day that the SLDN litigation was initiated. Another case, Pedersen v. OPM, has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed the Gill and Pedersen cases. Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s lead attorney for cases, responded to the lawsuit by saying her organization empathizes with the troops in the McLaughlin case.
“We have enormous respect and empathy for the service men and women being hurtby DOMA, and for all families hurt by DOMA,” Bonauto said. “Those couples are more great examples of how DOMA’s double standards make no sense. DOMA violates the Constitution that our menand women in the military are risking their lives to uphold.”
Bonauto added, “We believe the best way to end the harm is through getting a positive appellate ruling as soon as possible, and we are working hard to strike the blow that will end DOMA in our Gill case.”
At the news conference, Sarvis said he’s held conversation with other groups involved in DOMA litigation, but added they’ve been “very brief.”
“I wish we had more time to consult with them, but we were on a track, and, frankly, I was not aware that today was an important day for them with the respect to their briefing before the Court of Appeals,” Sarvis said. “But at the end of the day, we share the same objective here. I think we want to be in the best venue for all the plaintiffs, whether it’s the plaintiffs in Massachusetts in the Gill case or here in the McLaughlin case.”
The SLDN lawsuit also isn’t the only pending case that involved gay service members seeking partner benefits. Carmen Cordova, a Navy veteran who married her spouse in Connecticut last year, filed her own lawsuit earlier this month in the Court of Veterans Claims. Cordova reportedly applied for an increase in her monthly disability compensation after she was newly married, but was denied on the basis of federal law.
SLDN has filed the lawsuit as it and other organizations are pushing the Pentagon to make changes administratively to offer other benefits to gay troops. Among the benefits in this category are making same-sex married couples eligible for joint duty assignments, family center programs and military family housing.
As this effort is underway, Sarvis said litigation is necessary because federal law prohibits “big ticket” benefits from going to gay troops.
“That’s why we’ve brought this constitutional legal challenge to DOMA and to those three titles [of federal law],” Sarvis said. “The big ticket items are the ones that we are outlining in the suit.”
The Pentagon’s Lainez said the issue of providing certain benefits to service members with same-sex partners remains under review.
“In connection with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, the Defense Department is engaged in a careful and deliberate review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to other individuals including same-sex partners,” Lainez said.
Tagged with Aubrey Sarvis, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Homepage Headlines, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
We welcome your thoughtful, respectful comments. Please read our 'Terms of Service' page for more information about community expectations.
Comments from new visitors, flagged users, or those containing questionable language are automatically held for moderation and may not appear immediately.