By John Jalsevac
March 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A lawsuit was filed yesterday with the federal District Court in Boston that seeks to declare portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, unconstitutional.
The suit addresses the use of DOMA Section 3, which makes clear that spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and in the issuance of passports are reserved for married couples only.
The plaintiffs in the suit are eight homosexual couples who say they are “married” and three individuals whose homosexual partners have passed away.
Nancy Gill, a postal worker “married” to Marcelle Letourneau, who is one of the plaintiffs, said that she was “shocked” when she tried to put her homosexual partner on her health plan, but was rejected. “My employer, the federal government, doesn’t protect my family the same way it does my co-workers’ families. That’s not right.”
The suit was filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).
“It’s time for the federal government to end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD.
DOMA was passed in 1996, and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. It specifies that the federal government cannot treat same-sex relationships as “marriage” for any purposes, and also protects individual states from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” obtained elsewhere.
The Alliance Defence Fund, a pro-family legal fund, condemned the lawsuit as violating the democratic process.
“Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. “America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?”
Raum pointed out that currently 45 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Furthermore, all 30 states that have sought to affirm marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions have done so, while DOMA itself passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate.
“None of these facts appear to matter to the people who have filed this lawsuit,” Raum explained. “They do not care about the negative social impact on children if federal judges redefine marriage. Courts should never impose a system which guarantees that more kids will be brought up in homes without a married mom and dad. How can we justify hurting millions of children for the possible emotional benefit of a very small number of adults?”
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins expressed concerns that the Obama administration’s Department of Justice would not suitably defend DOMA against the lawsuit, given Obama’s personal position in favor of repealing the law.
“We advise the Obama Administration to fulfill its constitutional duties and defend DOMA energetically and competently. We also urge any federal courts that hear this case to dismiss it and preserve the right of the people to decide such important public policy decisions,” said Perkins.
“DOMA is necessary, as is a Federal Marriage Amendment, to ensure a solid future for traditional marriage in this country and the well-being of our children.”