• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

A group of 70 organizations is asking President Obama to build on his work against bullying in schools by endorsing legislation pending in Congress that would prohibit harassment of LGBT students.

In a letter dated March 7, the groups ask Obama to endorse the Student Non-Discrimination Act, or SNDA, which would prohibit and harassment in public elementary and secondary schools based on a student’s actual or perceived LGBT status. No federal law explicitly prohibits harassment against LGBT students in school.

“SNDA would provide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) students with long overdue and much needed explicit federal protections against discrimination and harassment,” the letter states. “The legislation also protects students who associate with LGBT people, including students with LGBT parents and friends.”

The organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union — include LGBT groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, as well as other groups, such as the American Psychological Association, the Feminist Majority and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Religious groups, such as the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ also signed the letter.

Obama has said he’s committed to combatting bullying and harassment in schools, but has yet to endorse legislation that would explicitly prohibit the bullying of LGBT students.

The letter asks Obama to endorse SNDA so that it has the same level of support from the White House as other pro-LGBT bills, such as the Respect for Marriage Act, which Obama endorsed in June, or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

“An endorsement of the Student Non-Discrimination Act would likewise be a clarion call for equality in our schools and better protections for vulnerable children,” the letter states. “And more importantly, it would make clear to all Members of Congress what the administration views as a necessary federal legislative solution to the serious problem of anti-LGBT discrimination and harassment in our nation’s public schools.”

Groups send the letter to Obama ahead of March 10, which will mark the anniversary of the anti-bullying summit held at the White House in 2011. The event was seen as the hallmark effort of Obama’s commitment to combat bullying in schools.

Ian Thompson, the ACLU’s legislative representative, said an announcement in support of SNDA on the anniversary of the anti-bullying summit would have significant impact.

“An endorsement by the administration on the anniversary of the White House Conference on Bullying Prevention would be a powerful statement from the administration that all students are entitled to an education unhindered by discrimination and harassment,” Thompson said.

Other anti-bullying efforts the administration has undertaken include holding the first-ever federal LGBT youth summit in June and issuing guidance informing schools they may be violation of federal laws protecting students from harassment on the basis of gender by allowing anti-gay bullying. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials have also appeared in “It Gets Better” videos.

Just this week, the Departments of Justice and Education, together with six private plaintiffs and the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota, came to an agreement on a consent decree to resolve alleged bullying and harassment of students who weren’t conforming to gender stereotypes.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said Obama supports the goals of the SNDA, didn’t offer full-throated support of the bill.

“Without speaking to the specifics of this letter, I would note that the President supports the goals of the Student Non-Discrimination Act,” Inouye said. “As the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is being considered by Congress, we look forward to working with lawmakers to ensure that all students are safe and healthy and can learn in environments free from discrimination, bullying and harassment.”

SNDA is sponsored by gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) in the House and Sen. Al Franken in the Senate. The bill has 156 co-sponsors in the House and 37 co-sponsors in the Senate.

The legislation may see action on the Senate floor this year. Franken, who offered then withdrew the bill as an amendment to education reform legislation before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, said he’d offer SNDA as an amendment when the Education & Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill comes to the Senate floor. The bill is unlikely to come up as a standalone bill in the Republican-controlled House.

Obama administration officials have been repeatedly asked about whether the administration is ready to support SNDA. During a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a response to a question from the Washington Blade that having law on the books like the Student Non-Discrimination Act would “certainly be helpful,” but stopped short of endorsing the bill.

“We have had conversations with various stakeholders on the Hill and spoken about that, and are carefully reviewing that particular proposal,” Perez said.

Another piece of legislation pending before Congress, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, or SSIA, also aims to protect LGBT students from bullying. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen Bob Casey (D-Pa.) in the Senate, would require schools to adopt anti-bullying codes of conduct and submit to states data to the Department of Education on bullying.

ACLU’s Thompson said SSIA isn’t mentioned in the letter for the sake of having a more clearly stated request to Obama.

“While SSIA and SNDA have complementary goals, the bills do different things,” Thompson said. “Many of the organizations on this letter also support SSIA, but in order to have as clear of an ‘ask’ as possible to the administration, we decided to focus this particular letter on SNDA.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Ken Cuccinelli (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Virginia State Board of Social Services voted 5 to 1 on Wednesday to allow licensed adoption agencies to refuse to approve adoptions or foster parents based solely on a would-be parent’s sexual orientation as well as six other characteristics.

The board took that action by rejecting for the second time this year an adoption related rule change first drafted in 2009 by state social services officials under former Governor Tim Kaine.

The proposed change called for banning discrimination in the state’s adoption and foster care system solely because of someone’s sexual orientation, religion, age, gender, disability, political beliefs, or family status.

MORE IN THE BLADE: CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES ‘IN DRIVER’s SEAT’ IN VIRGINIA

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and the state’s controversial attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, who took office in 2010, opposed the changes. Cuccinelli told the board in a letter that it lacked the authority to add a sexual orientation non-discrimination provision in adoption rules because sexual orientation is not a protected status under state law.

“Politics once again trumped child welfare in Virginia,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “How many times can you let the 1,300 children in Virginia’s foster care system waiting for a loving, forever home down?”

Solmonese called on the Virginia Legislature to pass legislation “that makes the best interest of the child the sole basis for adoption, not whether someone is gay or whether two caring adults are able to be married.”

MORE IN THE BLADE: VIRGINIA ELECTS FIRST OPENLY GAY SENATOR

Virginia law limits adoptions to married couples and single parents. Unlike some states, it does not prohibit gays from adopting. It prohibits adoptions by unmarried couples, gay or straight. The proposed change that the board rejected did not call for legalizing adoptions for unmarried couples.

The Family Equality Council, a national gay rights group, says as many as 6,700 adopted children are being raised in Virginia by same-sex couples, with one member of the couple having obtained the adoption.

Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBT advocacy group, also condemned the board’s action, saying it would have an especially harmful impact on large numbers of LGBT youth awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home.

“Today, the State Board of Social Services told the people of the Commonwealth, who they represent, that it is okay for agencies licensed by the state to discriminate in making their services available to prospective adoptive and foster care parents, the 1,200 children waiting for a loving forever home and the 6,000 children in foster care,” said Claire Gastanaga, Equality Virginia’s legislative counsel.

In its action on Wednesday, the board left in place the state’s current non-discrimination policy for adoption and foster care, which bans discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.

Gastanaga, who attended the meeting in which the board voted, said the vote came after a Cuccinelli representative told the six board members that expanding the rules to include sexual orientation discrimination and the other categories could subject board members to “personal liability.”

She said legal experts supporting the expanded non-discrimination rule have disputed Cuccinelli’s claim that the board doesn’t have the authority to make the change.

A spokesperson for the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union told Reuter’s News Service that the ACLU was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the board’s action.

The board has said that during a 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule change it received 1,611 comments in support of expanding the non-discrimination protections and 1,154 comments opposed to the expanded protections.

Among those speaking out against the expanded protects was Krystal Thompson, chief executive officer of Commonwealth Catholic Charities, one of several faith based organizations licensed by the state to facilitate adoptions and foster care placements.

“We have the right under federal and state law to make decisions consistent with our religious beliefs,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch quoted her as saying.

Gastanaga said some faith based adoption agencies as well as non-religious agencies routinely approve adoptions and foster care placements to lesbians and gay men in Virginia.

“Equality Virginia believes that best interests of the child should be the sole basis for child placement decisions,” she said in a statement. “Discrimination based on any of the factors stripped from the final rules has no place in the decision by the state or its licensed agencies whether to provide adoption or foster care services to children or to prospective loving parents.”

Aradhana ‘Bela’ Sood, professor of psychiatry and chair the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Virginia Commonwealth University, serves as chair of the State Board of Social Services. She was the one board member to vote against the decision to reject the expanded non-discrimination rules.

“The science really doesn’t substantiate the notion that that is the only way children should be raised,” the Times-Dispatch quoted her as saying in referring to the assumption that children do better when raised by a married heterosexual couple.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

On a summer night, two lovers couldn’t wait to leave Tuscumbia, Ala., to get married in Boston. As they began their trip, a shot was heard. Waving his gun, the brother of the bride-to-be expressed disgust with their plans. Facing the disapproval of their families, and knowing that their marriage would be illegal in many states, the couple decided not to wed.

These thwarted lovebirds weren’t a same-sex couple dealing with trigger-happy homophobia. This couple, whose marital plans were nixed in 1916, were journalist Peter Fagan and Helen Keller, the deaf-blind author and American Civil Liberties Union co-founder. Then, many states prohibited people with disabilities from marrying. Some of these laws remained on the books until the 1970s.

Fighting for marriage equality is one of many things that the LGBT and disability communities historically (and today) have in common.

This month is Disability Pride Month, observed to celebrate the history of people with disabilities and passage 21 years ago of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination.

As a legally blind lesbian, watching the first same-sex couples getting married in New York, I’m proud to be queer and crip. (Reclaiming the pejorative word “cripple,” many of us proudly call ourselves queer and crip.)

Nearly one in five Americans (51.2 million) has a disability and from three to five million people are LGBT and have disabilities, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

We queer crips are of all races, classes, genders, orientations and occupations. Our disabilities include HIV, diabetes, cancer and depression (all covered under the ADA).

If you’re LGBT and a recovering alcoholic, you, too are protected by the ADA.

As a queer crip, the idea of Rep. Michele Bachmann being president makes me shudder. When you’re LGBT and have a disability, you run into people who not only want to “pray the gay away,” but folks who believe if you only prayed more, you’d no longer be disabled.

The sexual oppression of the LGBT and disability community has encouraged both groups’ marginalization, said Bethany Stevens, a policy analyst and sexual health expert at the Center for Leadership and Disability at Georgia State University, in a telephone interview. “Both [groups] are sexually demonized. This is the root of homophobia and ableism [prejudice against disabled people],” said Stevens, who uses a wheelchair and is marrying her partner Sara in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 5. LGBT people and disabled folk have a common history of being scorned by the government and medical establishment. The late Dr. Linda Laubenstein, who had polio, was one of the first to fight for HIV research funding in the early AIDS epidemic (when President Reagan wouldn’t say the word AIDS).

People who are queer and who have disabilities both experience bullying, said Calif. state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) author of the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful Education Act, which requires California schools to begin teaching gay and disability history, in a telephone interview. “Both experience the cruelty of harassment … for the mere fact of being different.”

Yet though LGBT people and disabled folk are marginalized groups, queer crips often don’t feel welcome in the queer community. This is partly because of the inaccessibility of many bars and other LGBT meeting places. But a key reason why queer crips are outsiders in the LGBT community, is because people “perceive us as undesirable and uninterested in sex,” Stevens said.

Not true. We not only have sex, we love it!

“Many able-bodied LGBT people have visualized their ideal lovers right down to their preferred physical requirements, never once thinking that their perfect lover may have a disability,” wrote Raymond Luczak, a deaf gay writer and author of “Road Work Ahead: Poems,” in an e-mail.

Years of prejudice won’t be easily swept away. Yet, let’s make a beginning during this season of Pride. I invite you to get know us queer crips.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The U.S. House approved on Thursday major Pentagon budget legislation that includes anti-gay language that could disrupt “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and would reaffirm the Defense of Marriage Act.

By a vote of 322-96, the Republican-controlled House approved the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill after three days of debate that discussed continued military operations in Afghanistan, funding for next-generation military programs and increased pay rates for U.S. troops.

Among the many provisions of the defense authorization bill is anti-gay language that the House Armed Services Committee inserted upon consideration of the legislation.

The most high-profile anti-gay provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) — is language that would expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to include the four military service chiefs. Such a provision would complicate the repeal process established by the law signed in December, which would implement open service after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Another provision, offered as an amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), reaffirms that the Defense Department and its regulations are subject to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Yet another provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo) — prohibits military facilities for being used for same-sex marriage ceremonies, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, and prevents military chaplains from presiding over same-sex marriages in their official capacities. The language would expand the federal restrictions on same-sex marriage beyond what DOMA already imposes.

Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, expressed concerns over passage of the legislation — particularly for the inclusion of a provision authorizing worldwide war against terrorism suspects and nations suspected of supporting them — in addition to objecting to the provision that would complicate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“Trying to throw a roadblock up to derail ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal at this point is a desperate attempt to postpone the inevitable,” Murphy said. “For nearly 20 years, lesbian, gay and bisexual service members have been forced to hide who they are and who they love in order to serve their country. It was with the will of the president, the uniformed and civilian leadership of the military and Congress itself that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was repealed and its implementation will continue to move forward successfully despite the attempts by some House members to disrupt it.”

A number of lawmakers who supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal last year voted in favor of the defense authorization bill despite the anti-gay language. On the House floor, some pro-repeal lawmakers said they were casting affirmative votes because they said they think the bill as whole is good for the U.S. armed forces.

On Tuesday, Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services personnel committee, objected to the language in the bill related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as she expressed support for the legislation as a whole.

“While there are many good provisions in this bill, I must raise my extreme disappointment with several sections that were included by the majority that seek to delay and prevent gays and lesbians from serving in uniform,” Davis said. “One of the liberties that we as Americans hold dear is that we are all created equal. These individuals should be entitled to serve their Nation in uniform and should not be denied the opportunity.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was also among the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal supporters who voted in favor of the defense authorization bill.

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said the Democratic leader voted for the defense authorization bill despite the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language because she believes this provision won’t ultimately make it to the president’s desk.

“Leader Pelosi strongly opposes the ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] language in the [defense] Authorization bill but believes the provisions concerning ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] repeal will be removed in conference,” Hammill said. “If these provisions remain intact and are an obstacle to ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] repeal implementation, she believes President Obama should veto the legislation.”

But each of the four openly gay members of Congress — Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — were among the among the 96 “no” votes on the legislation.

Although the House approved the defense authorization bill with anti-gay language, passing such a measure into law would be challenging because the Democratic-controlled Senate would have to agree to the anti-gay language during conference negotiations.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization is looking to the Senate to ensure the anti-gay provisions won’t appear in the final version of the defense authorization bill.

“The opposition may well believe they won the day in the House, simply outnumbering repeal advocates,” Sarvis said. “But this fight is far from over. We must look to repeal supporters in the Senate, where the defense bill will be taken up next and where we are better positioned than in the House. We need to beat back this harmful language and make sure it does not survive in conference committee.”

Another roadblock for the anti-gay language is President Obama, who would have to sign the provisions into law as part of the larger measure for them to enacted. The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy earlier this week denouncing the provisions related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and DOMA — although stopped short of threatening to veto the bill over this language.

Moreover, the certification expansion for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal may well be a moot point even if the legislation reaches the president’s desk. Defense officials have testified that certification for repeal could happen mid-summer, and the final version of the defense bill likely will not reach the president’s desk until after that time, rendering the provision useless.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, expressed skepticism about the anti-gay measures becoming law or thwarting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“The passage of the defense authorization bill with these hostile amendments included comes as no surprise, and it should not become a cause for concern as long as our allies in the Senate and the president all stand strong and refuse to support a defense bill containing these amendments,” he said. “These amendments were nothing short of a waste of time by lawmakers who were sent to Washington to do serious business and a waste of taxpayer money. The Pentagon, the president, and the American people have made it abundantly clear — we are moving forward and building a stronger military free of unnecessary discrimination.”

No attempt was made on the House floor to strip the defense authorization bill of its anti-gay language. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) had intended to offer an amendment to remove the language related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” according to the Rules Committee website, but never offered the measure. Kezmiche Atterbury, a Norton spokesperson, said her boss “withdrew her amendment for tactical reasons.”

Informed sources said House Democratic leaders offered those who worked last year to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal the opportunity for an amendment on the floor to eliminate the language in the defense authorization bill related to certification expansion.

However, the five major repeal organizations — the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Third Way, Servicemembers United and the Center for American Progress — agreed to decline the opportunity for the amendment.

According to sources, repeal advocates believed such a amendment would likely fail and could pick up support from moderate House Democrats. A defeat on the House floor, advocates believed, would increase the chances of the Senate adopting the certification expansion language.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

The high-profile case of a lesbian Air Force officer who was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and seeking reinstatement in the U.S. military has resulted in a settlement allowing her to retire with full benefits.

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington announced that Maj. Margaret Witt, a flight nurse separated in 2007 under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” reached an agreement with the U.S. government in litigation challenging her discharge. The ACLU of Washington represented Witt since 2006 in a lawsuit known as Witt v. Air Force.

According to the ACLU, Witt will retire with full benefits, the unlawful discharge will be removed from her military service record and the U.S. government will drop the appeal of the district court ruling in her favor.

In a statement, Witt said rulings and appeals over the course of litigation in the Ninth Circuit contributed to discussion on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that led to passage of legislation allowing for repeal of the law. She was present during the signing ceremony of the repeal legislation in December.

“I am proud to have played a role in bringing about the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Witt said. “I am so pleased that the tens of thousands of lesbians and gays who have served their country honorably will be able to serve openly.”

In November, the Obama administration appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals a decision from U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton ordering that Witt be reinstated into the Air Force. Following his ruling in September, Witt became the first gay person discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be reinstated by court order.

“For the past seven years, I have been fighting for my rights and the rights of other lesbians and gays in the military,” Witt said. “I wish I could have spent that time serving with my peers. Now, with the lawsuit completed, I’m ready to start a new chapter in my life.”

Witt, who had served in the Air Force for 18 years, has begun a doctorate program and serves as rehab coordinator at the Veterans Administration hospital in Spokane, Wash, according to the ACLU.

Sarah Dunne, legal director for ACLU of Washington, responded to the settlement by commending the U.S. military for moving toward repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“As we’ve seen over the past six months, the military is now in the process of successfully integrating openly lesbian and gay soldiers,” Dunne said. “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was a failed policy that perpetuated unlawful discrimination for far too long. We are pleased that gay and lesbian U.S. service members no longer have to hide their sexual orientation and compromise their integrity.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, commended Witt for reaching a settlement with the U.S. government.

“Her case established a new rule of law in the Ninth Circuit, and her voice and story were pivotal in building support for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Sarvis said. “This is not just a victory for Maj. Witt — it’s a victory for justice and for service members everywhere.”

In 2008, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Air Force had to prove that discharging Witt was needed for purposes of military readiness. Additionally, the court ruled that before separating a service member under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military had to prove that his or her presence undermines unit cohesion. This requirement became known as the “Witt Standard” and was used in subsequent litigation against the military’s gay ban.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Edie Windsor (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A schedule could be established on Monday for federal litigation challenging the Defense of Marriage Act during a status conference before a New York federal district court.

The status conference concerns the case of Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, and will take place before Magistrate Judge James Francis at the Southern District of New York Courthouse. The lawsuit contends that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment.

Robyn Shepard, an ACLU spokesperson, said the judge will hear proposals from the parties about the schedule for briefing and discovery for the case, and he may decide on a schedule.

Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, is set to appear before the judge. Because of DOMA, Windsor had to pay $350,000 in taxes to inherit the estate of her spouse, Thea Spyer, upon her death in 2009. The two had been couple for 44 years and were legally married in Canada in 2007.

In addition to Windsor, representatives of the Justice Department and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House are also set to appear.

The Justice Department announced in February that President Obama determined the law was unconstitutional and it would no longer defend DOMA against in the court. After a party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher to defend DOMA and hired Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, to assist with defending the anti-gay law.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday called for redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to pay for defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court as he made public his decision to hire a U.S. solicitor general from the Bush administration to defend the anti-gay statute.

In a letter dated April 18 to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Boehner calls for cutting funds from the Justice Department to provide money to the House general counsel to pay for congressional costs to defend in court DOMA, the 1996 anti-gay law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

On the same day, Boehner’s office announced that Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, would assist the House general counsel in taking up defense of DOMA against litigation. Clement is now a partner at the D.C.-based office for the firm King & Spalding, where he manages the national appellate practice.

Boehner made the announcements on the deadline day for the House to decide whether or not to intervene in one case challenging DOMA, Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and is pending before the U.S. District Court of Southern District of New York. The House general counsel filed a notice of its intent to intervene on Monday.

In his letter to Pelosi, Boehner writes that funds should be redirected from the Obama administration to Congress to pay for expenses that the speaker says would have been more rightfully incurred by the Justice Department.

“Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA,” Boehner writes. “It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”

On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, Boehner directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.

In his letter, Boehner writes that the Justice Department would be in a better position to defend DOMA — both in terms of resource allocation and in expertise of personnel — but adds the administration’s decision to drop defense of the anti-gay law leaves Congress no other option but to face “that additional burden and cost.“

“I would also point out that the cost associated with DOJ’s decision is exacerbated by the timing of this decision,” Boehner writes. “Most of these cases are in the middle of lower court litigation and not ripe for Supreme Court review. Had the Attorney General waited until the cases were ripe for certiorari to the Supreme Court, the costs associated with the House defense would have been exponentially lower.”

Obama dropped defense of DOMA in court after litigation against the statute was filed in the U.S. Second Circuit. Since no legal precedent for laws related to sexual orientation exists within this circuit, Obama had the opportunity to examine DOMA with heightened scrutiny, which led to his determination that the anti-gay law was unconstitutional.

Boehner’s letter was in response to a March 11 letter that Pelosi sent to the speaker asking him if he had an estimate for House defense of DOMA and a plan to provide congressional oversight of these expenses. Earlier this month during a news conference, Boehner told the Washington Blade he doesn’t have an estimate on the cost for House defense of DOMA.

In his letter, Boehner asks Pelosi, a sponsor of legislation to repeal DOMA, to join him in backing the redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to defend the anti-gay statute in court.

“I would welcome your joining me in support of redirecting those resources from the DOJ to the House that would otherwise have been necessary expenses on the Attorney General to defend this federal statute,” Boehner writes.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

In another letter dated April 18 responding to Boehner, Pelosi writes that the speaker didn’t answer the central question in her initial missive on the total estimated cost for House defense of DOMA.

“Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel,” Pelosi writes. “Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged.”

Pelosi also maintains that House defense of DOMA against litigation isn’t required and disputes an assertion from Boehner that administration’s decision amounts to the president unilaterally determining the constitutionality of the anti-gay law.

“As you know, only the courts can determine the constitutionality of a statute passed by the Congress,” Pelosi writes.

Finally, Pelosi takes issue with Boehner’s decision to hire Clement as an attorney in the case and says Democrats weren’t informed about the decision beforehand.

“According to reports, a contract engaging Paul D. Clement to serve as the outside counsel reportedly was forwarded to the Committee on House Administration, although not to the Democratic members or staff of the Committee,” Pelosi writes. “I would like to know when the contract with Mr. Clement was signed, and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee.”

One LGBT advocate lambasted Boehner for declaring that Congress should defund part of the Justice Department so that House can take up defense of DOMA.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Boehner’s decision amounts to a betrayal of House Republicans promise to work to improve the economy if elected to a majority in Congress.

“The House Republican Leadership continues to show that they’re more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems,” Solmonese said. “As Americans across the country continue to struggle, Speaker Boehner’s prescription has been to keep families he doesn’t like from accessing needed protections. To add insult to injury, he’s now signed on to a right-wing plan to cut funding for the Department of Justice.”

Boehner cannot unilaterally redirect congressionally allocated funds from the Justice Department to the House for the purposes of defending DOMA. Both the House and the Senate would have to approve the fund redistribution legislatively through the appropriations process — and such a measure would need Obama’s signature for enactment.

During a news conference Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in response to a question from ABC News’ Ann Compton on Boehner’s call to redirect from funds the Justice Department that the administration would work with Congress on the issue.

“I’m not aware of that [letter],” Carney said. “I don’t any comment specifically on funding. I do know that the day that announced that this year. I spoke about it, but we obviously will work with Congress, if Congress so chooses to move forward.”

Pressed further by Compton, Carney deferred comment to the Justice Department. Both the White House and the Justice Department declined to comment further on the development in response to a request by the Blade.

The total amount of funds that Congress could redirect from the Justice Department to the House general counsel as a result of the Obama administration’s decision to no longer defend DOMA in court remains in questions. In testimony March 1 before the House Appropriations Committee, Holder said the funds that the Justice Department would save by not defending DOMA would be insignificant.

“I’m not sure we save any money, frankly.” Holder said. “The people who would be defending the statute, were we to do that, are career employees of the Department of Justice, who will not be spending their time doing that; they will be spending their time doing other things. I’m not sure that I see any savings as a result of the decision that I announced with the president.”

Paul Clement (photo courtesy King & Spalding)

Boehner taps Paul Clement to defend DOMA

In addition to railing against Boehner’s call to defund part of the Justice Department to defend DOMA, LGBT advocates criticized Boehner for hiring Clement as outside counsel to defend the anti-gay law in court as well as the attorney for taking up the speaker’s cause.

According to his bio on King & Spalding’s website, Clement served as the 43rd U.S. solicitor general 2005 to 2008 and argued more than 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In private practice, Clement has focused on appellate matters, constitutional litigation and strategic counseling.

In September 2009, the Washingtonian reported that Clement was making $5 million at the law firm — while the average salary for other attorneys at the firm made $1.235 million in 2008. D.C. managing partner J. Sedwick Sollers reportedly wouldn’t comment on Clement’s salary.

Clement didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request to comment on why he was interested in defending DOMA or what his legal fees would cost the U.S. government.

Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, confirmed that the speaker had hired Clement to take on defense of DOMA, but didn’t have information the fees for taking him on retainer.

“The costs will be determined by Mr. Clement’s legal strategy,” Steel said. “Earlier today, the Speaker sent a letter to Rep. Pelosi, the Democratic Leader in the House, urging her to work with us to redirect the necessary funds from the Department of Justice — since they have declined to defend the law.”

LGBT advocates had harsh words for both Clement and King & Spalding for facilitating defense of DOMA in court. Solmonese rebuked the firm’s for allowing Clement to defend the ant-gay law as part of his private practice.

“The firm of King & Spalding has brought a shameful stain on its reputation in arguing for discrimination against loving, married couples,” Solmonese said.  “No amount taxpayer money they rake in will mitigate this blemish on the King & Spalding name.”

According to HRC, media reports have indicated that Clement’s hourly fees could top $1,000, which could his role in defending DOMA pricey for the U.S. government if the litigation, as expected, takes years to reach the Supreme Court.

James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and AIDS project, said Boehner’s decision to take on a private attorney to defend DOMA is notable at a time when deficit reduction is a top priority among U.S. leaders.

“It’s striking that Congress has decided at a time of budget cuts that this where they want to spend their money,” Esseks said. “They want to spend taxpayer dollars to try to defend a law that clearly is unconstitutional instead of trying of getting rid of the law, which they can easily do.”

Esseks said he doesn’t have an estimate for how much retaining Clement would cost the U.S government, but — noting his job history and his position at a prestigious law firm — said Clement’s legal fees would be probably be “pretty high.”

But Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which has two pending cases challenging DOMA — Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Pedersen v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management — had more mild words for Clement.

“Paul Clement is obviously a well-respected attorney,” Buseck said. “We’re happy the House has chosen its counsel so that the DOMA litigation can once again go forward.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democratic lawmakers on Friday hammered anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher during a congressional hearing with questions on why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage and the extent to which the National Organization for Marriage participated in campaigns to rescind state marriage laws.

In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Gallagher, NOM’s chair and co-founder, said marriage should restricted to one man and one woman because such unions are the only kind that can produce children and because state voters by referenda have affirmed 31 times that marriage shouldn’t be extended to gay couples.

“Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father,” Gallagher said. “This is not necessarily the reason why individuals marry; this is the great reason, the public reason why government gets involved in the first place.”

The hearing, which was titled “Defending Marriage,” took place on the heels of President Obama’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that his administration would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.

Gallagher said the need to raise children by married parents of opposite genders affirms the rationale for having in place DOMA, the 1996 law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, and criticized the Justice Department for dropping defense of the law.

“This is the rationale for the national definition of marriage proposed by Congress in passing DOMA: ‘civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing,’” Gallagher said. “If we accept, as DOMA explicitly does, that this is a core public purpose of marriage, then treating same-sex unions as marriage makes little sense.”

Following her opening statement, Gallagher bore the brunt of tough questioning from Democratic lawmakers during the question-and-answer session of the hearing.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Gallagher if the children of Jen and Dawn BarbouRouske, a married same-sex couple from Iowa who were present during the hearing, should have parents who can receive the full protections of marriage or if she considers these children “expendable.”

“I think no children are expendable,” Gallagher replied. “Gay people have families that are not marital families, but they are families. I myself was an unwed mother, so I have firsthand experience with being in a family that’s not a marital family. I don’t think you need to have a message of stigmatization and exclusion to protect to an ideal.”

Nadler, sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation in the House, interrupted Gallagher, saying “the whole point” of DOMA is stigmatization and exclusion, and pressed Gallagher further on why the institution of marriage benefits when same-sex couples are excluded.

“Because including same-sex unions as marriages denies at a public level that marriage is about an important way for getting together mothers and fathers and children,” Gallagher said.

Nadler continued to question Gallagher on NOM’s involvement in 2010 Iowa campaign that successfully ousted three justices from the state Supreme Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The lawmaker asked Gallagher, who estimated that NOM contributed between $600,000 and $650,000 to the campaign, why she would criticize the Justice Department for allegedly making a political decision while her organization politicized the judicial process.

“The National Organization of Marriage is political advocacy organization, and so I think it’s appropriate for us to be politically involved in ways that Department of Justice is not,” Gallagher replied.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, asked Gallagher whether reports were true that her organization contributed $1.9 million to the 2009 campaign in Maine to abrogate the states’s same-sex marriage law. Opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in nullifying the marriage law in the state before gay couples could marry there.

“I don’t have those figures in front of me, but we were involved in the [effort],” Gallagher said. “But that’s probably on the order [of our contributions].”

NOM has repeatedly come under fire for failing to disclose their donors during the campaign against the Maine marriage law. State courts have ordered the organization to reveal their donors in accordance with the law, but NOM has yet to do so.

Following the hearing, Dan Fotou, eastern regional field director for GetEQUAL, praised Democratic lawmakers for hammering Gallagher with tough questions after her testimony.

“I think it was good to hear the Democrats standing up and challenging Maggie Gallagher’s position,” Fotou said. “Fifty-two percent of Americans think that marriage equality is OK, so I think today was good in terms of putting a face on hate once again, and Maggie does a really great job of that.”

Democratic lawmakers’ criticisms during the hearing weren’t limited to Gallagher. Conyers questioned Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chair of the subcommittee, why no witnesses from the Justice Department were present to defend Obama’s decision to drop defense of DOMA.

“What bothers me about this hearing at this subcommittee is that the Department of Justice is not present,” Conyers said. “I was informed that they were not invited. … We have one of the leaders of the country, Ms. Gallagher, who’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars against judges … but there’s nobody here from the Justice Department.”

In response, Franks said the Justice Department would be invited to come during an upcoming hearing in May before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee on the DOMA decision. Upon further questioning, Franks maintained the panel was fair because its makeup included witnesses on both sides of the issue.

But Franks’ response apparently didn’t allay the concerns of Conyers, who said he hopes Congress can hear the Justice Department to respond to the criticisms of Gallagher.

“There’s a political tone in this hearing that I want to diminish as much as possible,” Conyers said. “The fact of the matter is this is not in regular order and I do not approve the way that we’re starting out this subcommittee [hearing].”

Despite the general tone in favor of DOMA during the hearing, several panel members known for having anti-gay views — including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who’s railed against same-sex marriage in home state, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who’s leading the effort to eliminate gay nuptials in D.C. — didn’t make an appearance. Neither the office for King nor Jordan responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on why the lawmakers didn’t attend the hearing.

Ian Thompson, who’s gay and legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the lack of presence by anti-gay lawmakers was telling that the they were uncomfortable with their positions.

“The thing that was particularly striking to me was the fact that so few DOMA supporters on the committee actually were in attendance,” Thompson said. “So, from my perspective, if the hearing was intended to demonstrate the support of the House of Representatives for DOMA, from the attendance alone, it was a complete and total flop.”

Rep. Trent Franks (Blade photo by Michael Key)

But a few anti-gay Republicans did make an appearance to rebuke the notion of extending marriage rights to gay couples and to criticize the Justice Department for dropping defense of DOMA.

Franks called Obama’s decision to discontinue defense of the anti-gay law an “edict” that “failed to show the caution and respect for Congress and the courts.”

“When the President unilaterally declares a duly enacted law unconstitutional, he cuts Congress and the American people out of the lawmaking process,” Franks said. “Such heavy-handed presidential action undermines the separation of powers and the principle that America is a constitutional republic predicated on the rule of law.”

Franks continued that the arguments in favor of DOMA are “reasonable and right” because marriage between one man and one woman is the best union for raising children.

“Traditional marriage has proven to be the most successful institution in humanity’s history for the propagation and preparation of the next generation,” Franks said. “The traditional family has proven to be the best department of welfare, the best department of education, the best department of crime prevention, and the best department of economic security that there has ever been.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a lawmaker known for anti-gay views, also made an appearance at the hearing and railed against what he called the government altering the definition of marriage. Smith, chair of the full House Judiciary Committee, offered an opening statement during the hearing even though he’s not a member of the subcommittee.

“If we tamper with the definition of marriage, harmful unintended consequences could follow,” Smith said. “The ability of religious institutions to define marriage for themselves to promote their sincerely held beliefs could be threatened.”

Smith said the will the people is for continued definition of marriage between one man and one woman — noting the 31 successful ballot initiatives that restricted marriage to such unions — and said the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide protections for same-sex couples seeking to marry.

“No one can seriously believe that the Constitution’s founders intended to create a right to same-sex marriage,” Smith said. “By refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges, the administration has allowed the courts to overrule that popular law.”

Franks and Smith’s opening statements were countered by initial remarks from Nadler, who called arguments that Justice Department acted inappropriately by dropping defense of DOMA a “red herring” and said the real question should be whether anyone — either the Obama administration or Congress — should defend the law.

“Far from demeaning, trivializing or destroying the institution of marriage, [gay] couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage,” Nadler said. “Rather than defending DOMA in court, Congress should be working to repeal it.”

Two legal experts on the panel presented opposing views on whether the administration acted within bounds in its decision to discontinue defense of DOMA in court.

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, said the Justice Department’s decision is in violation of its policy.

“The Obama administration’s decision to abandon defense of DOMA — or more precisely, to abandon its charade of pretending to defend DOMA — departs sharply from the Department of Justice’s long-standing practice,” Whelan said.

Whelan said Obama dropped defense of the anti-gay law to appease a political constituency and to induce the courts to “invent the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

“With the exception of laws that intrude on the executive branch’s power, the long-standing practice of the Department of Justice is to vigorously defend the constitutionality of any law where a reasonable may be made,” Whelan said. “This ‘reasonable standard’ is a very low bar. It basically means that the Department of Justice will defend a federal law against constitutional challenge when it can offer non-frivolous grounds in support of the law.”

Carlos Ball, a gay law professor at Rutgers Law School (Blade photo by Michael Key)

But Carlos Ball, a gay law professor from Rutgers Law School, testified that Obama acted within his authority because another statute exists saying that the attorney general must inform Congress if the administration decides to no longer defend a law.

“The existence of that statute seems to be a recognition by the Congress of the reality that the executive branch sometimes, in rare cases, can not defend the constitutionality of a law,” Ball said. “The executive branch, as a co-equal branch of government, has the authority and obligation to make independent assessment’s regarding a law’s constitutionality.”

Ball noted precedent for an administration declaring an existing law unconstitutional and dropping defense of the statute in court — the 1990 case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC. Then-acting U.S. Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that a law providing for minority preferences in broadcast licensing was unconstitutional. Despite the position of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court later upheld the law.

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

Mike Almy, a former Air Force officer, is among those who received half separation pay as a result of his discharge under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A new lawsuit filed over the halved separation pay given to some U.S. service members discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is raising questions about why the Defense Department hasn’t taken action to resolve the issue.

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of New Mexico filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims over administration policy cutting in half the severance pay that discharged troops who serve for at least six years in the armed forces would normally receive if they were separated for a reason other than homosexual conduct.

The policy was implemented in 1991, two years before Congress enacted the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute, and could be changed by implementing new regulations without action from lawmakers or the courts.

Joshua Block, staff attorney for the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender project, said his organization filed the class action lawsuit, known as Collins v. United States, as a result of this severance pay inequity.

“Basically, if you’re discharged under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ [and serve for at least six years], under the policy there’s virtually no way you can qualify for full separation pay,” Block said.

The issue only affects service members separated under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” who received honorable discharges and who have served for at least six years because only under those conditions do troops qualify for severance pay.

Further, because of the statute of limitations, the lawsuit would only affect service members who’ve been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” within the last six years.

Block said the litigation was brought on behalf of all service members involuntarily discharged in the past six years and estimated that at least 100 discharged service members will qualify as part of the class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The lead plaintiff in the litigation is Richard Collins, a former staff sergeant who was in the Air Force for nine years before he was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“After nine years of honorable service, it’s not fair that I should be deprived of the same benefits given to other dedicated service members who are adjusting to civilian life,” Collins said in a statement.

Another discharged service member who was affected by the pay inequity is Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer who testified earlier this year before the Senate about being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2006.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Almy said. “It’s pouring salt on the wound. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is horrendous enough as it is already. And then, when gays are thrown out the door, they’re even discriminated against once again in the severance pay that they receive.”

Almy said he received separation pay of $40,000 upon his discharge from the Air Force when he would otherwise have been entitled to $80,000.

The lawsuit was filed after the ACLU engaged with the Defense Department in November 2009 to change the policy in efforts that were ultimately unsuccessful. Correspondence had continued until as recently as August, when the ACLU threatened to sue the Pentagon over the lack of action.

Block said he’s hopeful the Pentagon would drop the policy as a result of the lawsuit and pay discharged troops they compensation they would normally receive.

“From our perspective, the litigation shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place, so we obviously hope that the government will do the right thing and pay these people the separation pay that they earned,” he said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said SLDN and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force identified the issue more than a year ago as something that the administration could resolve with a policy change.

“In this case, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates has the authority to stop this practice, and he should,” Sarvis said. “Not only should they stop it, we’ll also be seeking — as we have in the past — restitution on their back pay.”

Although the lawsuit has been filed, Sarvis noted “litigation is always protracted” and said the lawsuit could take years to resolve. Consequently, Sarvis said SLDN plans to continue pressing Gates to change the policy administratively and was set this week to meet with Pentagon officials to discuss the matter.

But why does the adminstration continue the policy when President Obama has said he wants to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the issue could be resolved with a stroke of a pen?

Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement that department policy authorizes half separation payments to members who are “not fully qualified to continue to serve” and who are being involuntarily separated under honorable conditions.

“Currently, members being discharged for ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] … receive half separation pay, because the law says they are not qualified to continue in service,” she added.

Almy said he has “no idea” why the Pentagon continues this policy and said the rationale for upholding the policy is similarly unknown to others.

“From the personnel people that I’ve been able to talk to at the Pentagon, no one really knows what the reason for that was,” Almy said.

Block also said he’s unsure why the adminstration hasn’t changed this policy as he noted the administration has a stated goal of wanting to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” through legislative action.

“They have to get that through Congress, and we understand they’re working on that, but this was a regulation that was passed before ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ even came into existence,” Block said. “The administration can get rid of it anytime it wants without needing congressional approval to do so.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Tweet This!
• Share this on LinkedIn
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Share this on Tumblr
• Add this to Google Bookmarks
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Google+

LGBT rights groups are continuing efforts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act with two new federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the statute.

On Tuesday, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and the American Civil Liberties Union filed two separate lawsuits against Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director, said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters that the federal government has no valid reason to engage in the regulation of marriage.

“We think there’s no legitimate reason whatsoever for the federal government to take one group of people who are already married and treat them differently from every other married couple,” she said.

Bonauto added that the authority to determine who can marry in the United States has traditionally been left to the states and said DOMA is the only federal law in U.S. history “that puts the federal government in the marriage business.”

The cases contend that DOMA violates the equal protection rights of same-sex couples under the U.S. Constitution.

James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and AIDS project, said DOMA is unconstitutional because the U.S. government “defers to state’s determination of whether a couple is married in every single context except when the couple is a same-sex married couple.”

“In that case, the federal government pretends that the couple isn’t married, but instead are strangers one to the other,” Esseks said. “That’s discrimination, and it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.”

The GLAD lawsuit, known as Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, is pending before the U.S. District Court of Connecticut and was filed on behalf of five married same-sex couples and a widower who reside in Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Each of the plaintiffs was denied the federal benefits of marriage in one respect or another, such as Social Security or the right to care for a spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act.

Joanne Pedersen, 57 and a Waterford, Conn., resident, said she’s participating in the lawsuit because although she’s a retiree of the Department of Naval Intelligence, DOMA prohibits her from insuring her spouse and partner of 12 years, who has a chronic lung condition.

“The naval community treated Ann just like other spouses, except when it came to sharing my benefits,” Pedersen said. “We both have some serious health challenges, and Ann has chronic health issues that make working stressful and draining for her. But Ann can’t hope to retire because DOMA prevents us from sharing health benefits.”

The ACLU lawsuit, known as Windsor v. United States, is pending before the U.S. District Court of Southern District of New York and was filed on behalf of a New York resident who had to pay $350,000 in federal estate taxes to receive her spouse’s inheritance.

Edith Windsor was partnered with Thea Spyer for 44 years before Spyer died last year after a battle with multiple sclerosis. The two married in Canada in 2007 and their marriage was recognized by the state of New York.

“After Thea died, the fact that the federal government refused to recognize our marriage was devastating,” Windsor said in a statement. “In the midst of my grief at the loss of the love of my life, I had to deal with my own government saying that we weren’t a family.”

Now that the organizations have filed the suits, the U.S. government has 60 days to respond. The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment, but has previously defended DOMA against other lawsuits.

Esseks noted the Justice Department has a few months to answer. With regard to the ACLU lawsuit, he said “it’s too early to talk in any meaningful way” about the timeline for the case.

For the GLAD lawsuit, Bonauto said she hopes the case would be resolved at the district court level within 12 to 15 months. She said she doesn’t think the litigation would go to the U.S. Supreme Court before 2013.

The two new lawsuits come on the heels of other rulings by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in July determining that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro made the decisions in case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, which was also filed by GLAD, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Following the district court’s decision to rule that part of DOMA is unconstitutional, the U.S. government appealed the cases to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, where the litigation is pending.

Bonauto said the additional GLAD lawsuit is necessary to continue to educate people about the “harms imposed by DOMA.” Additionally, she noted many of the plaintiffs in the Pedersen live in Vermont and Connecticut, which is in the Second Circuit, and wouldn’t be affected by a ruling in the First Circuit as a result of the Gill case.

“We are in a different federal judicial circuit here, so we have a chance to press once again the basic claim that DOMA is legally unconstitutional in terms of having a double-standard imposed only on gay and lesbian married couples,” Bonauto said.

If both the Gill and the Commonwealth cases reach the Supreme Court at the same time as justices take up the Pedersen case, Bonauto said she thinks the newer lawsuits could be combined with the older ones.

The filing of the lawsuits has inspired different reactions among advocacy groups that work on marriage. In a statement to the Blade, Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage, chided LGBT groups for continuing to challenge DOMA in the wake of Election Day results.

“After Tuesday’s election, in which gay marriage lost big, it’s pretty clear gay marriage advocates have failed to win the majority of Americans and so are turning once again to courts to impose views and values they’ve failed to persuade their friends, neighbors and fellow citizens to support,” she said.

But Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement that the litigation provides further evidence that DOMA is “not simply an abstract insult to the dignity of same-sex couples and their families — although it is indeed a deeply offensive law.”

“DOMA causes real harm to people like Joanne Pedersen, Ann Meitzen and Edie Windsor, denying them economic security, health coverage and other critical federal rights and benefits that other married couples take for granted,” Solmonese said.

One legal expert praised the GLAD and ACLU lawsuits for their potential in striking down DOMA. Nan Hunter, a lesbian and law professor at Georgetown University, said forecasting the outcome of any particular lawsuit is difficult, but said the way DOMA is challenged in these cases is “quite promising.”

“It allows the courts to rule on a law that changed the status quo by singling out only gays and reversing — only for that one group — the federal government position of recognizing all marriages that were valid under state law,” she said.

Hunter said the litigation strategy is similar to what was presented in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 case before the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned a Colorado ban on making gays a protected class in the state. Hunter recalled that in the Romer case, the high court “invalidated a state provision that singled out gays for having to meet a higher barrier in order to enact a civil rights law.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the name of James Esseks. The Blade regrets the error.