1
1 U.S.C. § 7.
2
Defendants in this action are the Office of Personnel Management; the United StatesPostal Service; John E. Potter, in his official capacity as the Postmaster General of the UnitedStates of America; Michael J. Astrue, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the SocialSecurity Administration; Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his individual capacity as the United StatesAttorney General; and the United States of America. Hereinafter, this court collectively refers tothe Defendants as “the government.”UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSNANCY GILL & MARCELLE LETOURNEAU,*et al.,**Plaintiffs,**v.*Civil Action No. 09-10309-JLT*OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,*et al.,**Defendants.**MEMORANDUMJuly 8, 2010TAURO, J.I.IntroductionThis action presents a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
1
as applied to Plaintiffs, who are seven same-sex couples married in Massachusettsand three survivors of same-sex spouses, also married in Massachusetts.
2
Specifically, Plaintiffscontend that, due to the operation of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, they have beendenied certain federal marriage-based benefits that are available to similarly-situated heterosexual
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 70 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 39
3
Though the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not contain an EqualProtection Clause, as the Fourteenth Amendment does, the Fifth Amendment’s Due ProcessClause includes an Equal Protection component. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499(1954).
4
In the companion case of
Commonwealth of Mass. v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs.,
et al., No. 09-cv-11156-JLT (D.Mass. July 8, 2010) (Tauro, J.) this court holds that the Defenseof Marriage Act is additionally rendered unconstitutional by operation of the Tenth Amendmentand the Spending Clause.
5
Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)
6
1 U.S.C. § 7.2couples, in violation of the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment.
3
Because this court agrees, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#20] is DENIEDand Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#25] is ALLOWED, except with regard toPlaintiff Dean Hara’s claim for enrollment in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, as helacks standing to pursue that claim in this court.II.Background
4
A. The Defense of Marriage ActIn 1996, Congress enacted, and President Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).
5
At issue in this case is Section 3 of DOMA, which defines the terms“marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, to include only the union of one man andone woman. In particular, it provides that:In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation,or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the UnitedStates, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and onewoman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of theopposite sex who is a husband or wife.
6
In large part, the enactment of DOMA can be understood as a direct legislative response
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 70 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 39
7
852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993).
8
See id. at 59-67.
9
Notably, the Baehr decision did not carry the day in Hawaii. Rather, Hawaii ultimatelyamended its constitution to allow the state legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.See
H
AW
. C
ONST
. art. I, § 23. However, five other states and the District of Columbia nowextend full marriage rights to same-sex couples. These five states are Iowa, New Hampshire,Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts, where Plaintiffs reside.
10
Aff. of Gary D. Buseck, Ex. D, H.R. Rep. No. 104-664 at 2-3 (1996),
reprinted in
1996U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905, 2906-07 (“H. Rep.”) [hereinafter “House Report”].
11
Id. at 10.
12
Id. at 2.3to Baehr v. Lewin,
7
a 1993 decision issued by the Hawaii Supreme Court, which indicated thatsame-sex couples might be entitled to marry under the state’s constitution.
8
That decision raisedthe possibility, for the first time, that same-sex couples could begin to obtain state-sanctionedmarriage licenses.
9
The House Judiciary Committee’s Report on DOMA (the “House Report”) referencedthe Baehr decision
as the beginning of an “orchestrated legal assault being waged againsttraditional heterosexual marriage,” and expressed concern that this development “threaten[ed] tohave very real consequences . . . on federal law.”
10
Specifically, the Report warned that “aredefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such coupleseligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits.”
11
And so, in response to the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision, Congress sought a means toboth “preserve[] each State’s ability to decide” what should constitute a marriage under its ownlaws and to “lay[] down clear rules” regarding what constitutes a marriage for purposes of federallaw.
12
Case 1:09-cv-10309-JLT Document 70 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 39
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Decision in Gill v. OPM
Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection clause. Found unconstitutional.
15.0K
Reads
145
Readcasts
3.6K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
