US federal government challenged for denying benefits to same-sex spouses
In 1996 the US enacted the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ (DOMA) which had the effect of allowing states to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages, and prevented the federal government from recognizing them at all. A recent law suit filed in the Boston Federal District Court, Massachusetts, represents the first large multi-party attack on DOMA since its passing.
The action was brought on behalf of the plaintiffs on constitutional grounds by the ‘Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders’ (GLAD) group. The action challenges a federal decision to deny certain benefits to spouses or surviving spouses of same sex marriages under Section Three of DOMA. While the federal government is entitled to do this under the Act, GLAD are arguing that since Massachusetts has chosen to recognize homosexual marriage (along with Connecticut), the federal government should follow suit in this case.
Human Rights Campaign (the largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender civil rights group in the US) has applauded the challenge. President Joe Solmonese has expressed his full support of the lawsuit, stating that those in homosexual relationships “make the same commitments and take on the same responsibilities ... as their fellow citizens”, and criticised the federal government’s attempts to interfere.
Although the federal government does not decide what constitutes marriage; marriage is taken into account when assessing eligibility for over one thousand benefits and protections.
Many political figures have spoken out in support of the action, including senator John Kerry and Attorney General Martha Coakley. Senator Kerry was the only senator running for re-election who voted against DOMA, and has criticized it ever since. He stated that “the courts have always been the last resort for those seeking justice under the law, and I’m proud that GLAD have taken action”. GLAD has set up a special website for those seeking information on the case, including a copy of the original complaint and up-to-date info as the case progresses.

No Comments