• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: 'Like a Hollywood movie': Driver survives I-5 bridge collapse into Wash. river
  • Recommended: 'Winter' - maybe even snow - to return for Memorial Day weekend
  • Recommended: Cars, drivers plunge into river after Wash. I-5 bridge collapse
  • Recommended: Deputy survives horrific shooting caught on camera after police stop

NBC News reporters bring you compelling stories from across the nation. For more US news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 22
    Feb
    2013
    9:03pm, EST

    US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples

    By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News

    The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court on Friday to throw out a section of a 1996 federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage.


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    The brief was filed Friday in United States v. Windsor, a case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the law that legally declares marriage to be only between a man and a woman. That section allows state and federal authorities to deny benefits to same-sex couples that are commonplace for heterosexual couples, like insurance for government workers and Social Security survivors' benefits.


    Oral arguments are scheduled for March 27.

    Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com

    In its brief (.pdf), the U.S. bluntly declares: "Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. 

    "The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples," said the brief, which was signed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the government's chief trial lawyer. "Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

    In a footnote, the brief mentions California's Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states as evidence that anti-gay discrimination remains a major problem.

    In effect, the U.S. is asking the court to change DOMA to set a higher bar for courts to approve laws that discriminate against gay men and lesbians, Lyle Denniston, a Supreme Court expert, wrote on the influential ScotusBlog.

    President Barack Obama announced in 2011 that the U.S. would no longer enforce DOMA, but "this is the first time the federal government has proposed that constitutional test in a gay rights case before the Supreme Court," Denniston writes. "The court itself has never specified just what constitutional standard it will apply in such cases, but it may have to settle that this term."

    Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.

    Related:

    • 'What's right is right': Widowed lesbian pushes for equal military benefits
    • Panetta extends some benefits to same-sex spouses, partners of gay troops

    2415 comments

    Obama administration urged the Supreme Court on Friday [2/22] to throw out a section of a 1996 federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage

    Show more
    Explore related topics: supreme-court, barack-obama, gay-rights, featured, doma, defense-of-marriage-act, same-ses-marriage
  • 11
    Feb
    2013
    12:10pm, EST

    Outgoing DOD boss Panetta extends some benefits to same-sex spouses, partners of gay troops

    By Bill Briggs and Jim Miklaszewski , NBC News

    Departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta extended Monday a list of benefits — all previously denied by the Pentagon — to the same-sex spouses of service members as well as to the unmarried partners of gay troops.


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    The perks, automatically available to heterosexual military spouses, will include child care services, member-designated hospital visits, and the issuing of military ID cards, which will give same-sex spouses and partners access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms. The policy changes will go into effect once training on the new rules is completed, Panetta said.

    While advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families hailed Panetta’s policy switch as “substantive” and “encouraging,” the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) still blocks the DOD from enacting more than 85 other benefits now provided to heterosexual military spouses and their children — most notably medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits.


    Also, as NBC News reported Feb. 4, that same federal law mandates that when a gay service member is killed in combat, military officials must first notify that troop’s blood family, not their spouse, as is normally the course of action. 

    Panetta said DOMA is “now being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court" — and he offered his first clear signal that the Pentagon wants that law overturned.

    “There are certain benefits that can only be provided to spouses as defined by that law,” Panetta said. “While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation. Until then, the department will continue to comply with current law while doing all we can to take care of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families."

    Same-sex advocates have been pushing the DOD to extend full benefits to the spouses and partners of all U.S. service members since the repeal 17 months of ago of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibited gay troops from revealing their sexual orientation.

    “At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy,” Panetta said. “It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country ...

    “Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."

    Advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families praised Panetta’s policy shift although they said that the move is not groundbreaking due to the DOMA legal blockade.

    “Secretary Panetta’s decision today answers the call President (Barack) Obama issued in his inaugural address to complete our nation's journey toward equality, acknowledging the equal service and equal sacrifice of our gay and lesbian service members and their families,” said Allyson Robinson, an Army veteran and executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an association of actively serving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender U.S. military personnel with more than 50 chapters and 6,000 members.

    “We thank him for getting us a few steps closer to full equality — steps that will substantively improve the quality of life of gay and lesbian military families,” Robinson said.

    The American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a support network for LGBT military families, released the following statement today in response to Panetta's announcement: 

    “We’ve waited far too long for this, and it’s fantastic news that our dedicated military families will now have access to some of the benefits and support services they need and deserve,” said Stephen Peters, the group's president. “However, (DOMA)  continues to undermine our military families who sacrifice so much for our nation. This summer, we hope that the Supreme Court will make it clear that our families are just as important and deserve the same protections, benefits, and support that federal recognition brings.”

    To offer the new benefits to partners, DOD will ask gay and lesbian service members to sign a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” in which they will attest that they are in a committed relationship, and intend to remain so indefinitely, and that neither is legally married, according to OutServe-SLDN.

    The changes will take “several months to complete, Pentagon officials said. The extra time is needed so that military leaders can offer a chance for the public to comment on the new rules and also to allow an opportunity for each of the branches to update its IT system, develop new processes for issuing ID cards, and train their personnel on the refreshed benefits package.

    Panetta did stop short on offering a full slate of benefits that gay advocates have been requesting for two years: on-base housing and burial at Arlington National Cemetery and other items that don’t fall under DOMA, according to OutServe-SLDN. (The organization’s lawyers drafted an explanation outlining the policy shift for gay service members and their families.)

    DOD officials have explained to OutServe-SLDN that “policy for burial at Arlington National Cemetery is under review. At issue is how to verify eligible same-sex relationships for the surviving spouse in order to ensure equitable policy implementation."

    NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski contributed to this report.

    Related:

    • 'What's right is right': Widowed lesbian pushes for equal military benefits
    • Spouses club relents, says lesbian Army wife can be 'full member'

    1723 comments

    Good! Its time has come!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: military, gay-rights, dod, featured, dont-ask-dont-tell, department-of-defense, panetta, doma, leon-panetta, defense-of-marriage-act
  • 4
    Feb
    2013
    4:05am, EST

    'What's right is right': Widowed lesbian pushes for equal military benefits

    Photo courtesy Tracy Johnson

    Donna Johnson, left, and Tracy Johnson at their home in Raeford, N.C., in 2012.

    By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

    When her spouse was killed in Afghanistan, Tracy Johnson drove across town to her mother-in-law’s house — clutching her marriage certificate — so she could hear the Army’s formal notification. No one from the military came to her door.

    She later watched as the American flag that cloaked the coffin of her spouse, Donna Johnson, was offered, not to her, but to Donna Johnson’s mother – the next of kin, as U.S. law stipulates. She was denied death benefits, she said, that are standard issue to heterosexual spouses of service members who die in action: free health care, tuition assistance, and monthly indemnity compensation of about $1,200.

    And then there was the ring. On Valentine’s Day 2012, Tracy Johnson placed that band on her wife's finger during their marriage ceremony in Washington, D.C. Last October, as Johnson escorted her wife's body home from Dover Air Force Base, the Army asked Johnson to carry the wedding ring, designated as a “personal effect.” After arriving in Fayetteville, N.C., Johnson was obliged, by a federal statute, to deliver the ring to an Army officer who then provided it to Donna Johnson’s mother who, in turn, gave it back to Tracy Johnson. She wears it on her finger today.

    “I’m not considered ‘family’ (by the military). I’m not considered a spouse and I’m damn sure not considered a widow, by definition,” said Johnson, an Army National Guard staff sergeant who served in Iraq. “We didn’t marry for any of those benefits. We married out of love.

    “And I’m not standing up here, whining: ‘Woe is me.’ We were adults, big girls, and we knew what we were getting ourselves into. But it doesn’t mean I have to stand idly by and see all this happen to somebody else who’s in a same-sex marriage (in the military).”

    Johnson's experiences were mandated by the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The 1996 law — followed by the Department of Defense and all federal agencies — bars same-sex military spouses from benefits made available to the heterosexual spouses of service members: dental and medical insurance, discounted military housing, and military ID cards, which allow spouses to visit on-base commissaries, child-care facilities and movie theaters.

    Under DOMA, military leaders were not allowed to officially acknowledge Johnson, who believes she may be the first same-sex spouse to lose a partner to combat following the 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) — the policy that kept gays from openly serving in the armed forces. (Donna Johnson’s mother specifically asked Tracy Johnson to accompany the body home, allowing her a seat on the plane.) The only federal employee who openly referred to the dead soldier as Johnson's “wife,” was President Barack Obama, who sent Johnson a letter of condolence, she said.

    On Thursday, Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, told congressional members during a confirmation hearing that he is "fully committed ... to doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members."


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    Furthermore, during his inauguration address on Jan. 21, Obama spoke broadly of gay rights, saying: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law."

    Battle for equality
    For now, current law stipulates that, following the military death of a same-sex spouse, the branches first must notify the “primary next-of-kin” — in Donna Johnson’s case, her parents. If U.S. troops list a same-sex spouse on their emergency-contact forms, that spouse eventually will receive word from the military — after the blood family is told. 

    “It is not like, though, it’s a day or 'x' number of weeks later. It would be almost immediately,” said Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. “They (branch officers) would talk to primary next-of-kin first and relay the information. And then, whoever the (other designated person is), they would call them very soon thereafter. So we’re talking minutes or hours as opposed to days, weeks or months.

    “DOMA is still the law we uphold. Even though that (DADT) repeal has been taken care of, there are certain benefits that are not applicable across the force,” Christensen added.

    But pressure is mounting on the Pentagon and the White House to change that notification policy — and the other gaps in same-sex spousal benefits — by writing an executive order or a DOD-wide regulation.

    Same-sex advocacy groups described the Jan. 25 electionof same-sex wife Ashley Broadway as Fort Bragg’s 2013 “spouse of the year” as a mandate to the military to figure out a way to override DOMA. That same day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama is contemplating how benefits could be administratively extended to the spouses of gay service members, the Washington Blade reported.

    'Just like all the other Army wives'
    “No military spouse should have to hear second-hand that something has happened to their service member,” said Stephen Peters, president of the American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a Washington, D.C.-based support network for lesbian and gay military families. 

    "No military spouse should have to watch the flag that is draped over the coffin of his or her service member folded and handed to anyone else,” added Peters, whose husband, Marine Corps Maj. Alasdair Mackay, returned safely in January from a one-year deployment to Afghanistan. “Our families live through the daily fear of worrying about having something happen to their service member while they’re deployed. But we do it without access to the same supports and benefits that other military families get. Our service members, they go to war for our country for equality, yet their families are treated as if they aren’t important, as if they are somehow second class.”

    Courtesy of Stephen Peters

    Marine Corps Maj. Alasdair Mackay and Stephen Peters were married in New York City during Christmas 2011 before Mackay deployed to Afghanistan.

    The AMPA asserts that Tracy Johnson was the first — and only, to date — same-sex spouse to lose a military wife or husband in combat. It's possible, however, that another same-sex spouse suffered that type of tragedy before DADT was rescinded and when members were not open about their sexual orientation — even if they were legally married. 

    Tracy Johnson was not listed on the emergency notification form that service members fill out, she said. Because DADT had been revoked, Donna Johnson assumed that Tracy would receive the same benefits that are granted to all military spouses — for example, being the first person to be notified by the military should a wife or husband die in combat, Johnson said. 

    "Donna didn't even realize she had to put me down. She thought I was automatically extended that benefit as her wife — just like all the other Army wives who are the first ones to notified," she said.

    'What's right is right'
    The point is moot — even if Tracy Johnson was listed, due to DOMA she still would not have been the first person that military officials would have visited in the hours after Donna Johnson was killed. 

    In June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA.

    Near Fort Bragg, N.C., Johnson holds tight to a fine philosophical line — honoring her wife and the Army while questioning the law. She describes how individual Army members privately treated her “with respect and compassion”, giving her an American flag — though not the same flag atop the coffin — during a private ceremony before Donna Johnson’s funeral. She lauds Donna Johnson’s family for supporting her, insisting that she sit with them in the front row during the memorial service.

    But Donna Johnson’s mother, Sandra, is not so charitable with her summary of the events.

    “Tracy’s unit supports her, her family supports her, and she was given support by the community itself. Why can’t the federal family be supportive?” Sandra Johnson asked. “I know: It’s the law. But what’s fair is fair. What’s right is right.

    “The family is already going through grief. You don’t keep putting a knife in the wound and make it deeper. She’s dead, she’s gone, she can’t be brought back. So why are you treating this family, and treating Tracy, with this indignation?”

    Related: Spouses club relents, says lesbian Army wife can be 'full member'

    1428 comments

    ...and wrong, is wrong!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: army, afghanistan, gay, military, lesbian, marine-corps, barack-obama, featured, equality, same-sex-marriage, dadt, dont-ask-dont-tell, department-of-defense, combat-deaths, gays-in-the-military, spouses, doma, defense-of-marriage-act
  • 7
    Dec
    2012
    5:23pm, EST

    Advocates on both sides hope for Supreme Court clarity on same-sex marriage

    By M. Alex Johnson, NBC News

    The Supreme Court's decision to review two landmark cases that deal with same-sex marriage could determine the future of gay rights in all 50 states. NBC's Pete Williams reports.

    New in this version: Adds legal analysis

    Updated at 6:50 p.m. ET: The Supreme Court's announcement Friday that it will take up two same-sex marriage cases this term gave advocates on both sides something to cheer about.

    The court picked cases involving two measures that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law, and California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative approved by state voters in 2008.

    Nearly two decades of legal skirmishing over the question has left supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage alike hoping for clarity from the Supreme Court, which has never before considered the topic.

    Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.

    "We are delighted that the nation's highest court will decide whether to uphold the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to preserve the unique definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman," said Andy Pugno, general counsel of Protect Marriage, which sponsored Proposition 8 and petitioned the court for a hearing after it was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court.

    US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue


    "Arguing this case before the Supreme Court finally gives us a chance at a fair hearing, something that hasn't been afforded to the people since we began this fight," Pugno said.

    At the same time, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who opposed enactment of the initiative, also welcomed the news, saying that "for justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity."

    Rick Jacobs, founder of Courage Campaign, a California group that campaigned vigorously against Proposition 8, said the Supreme Court hearing would hasten the day when the law would "catch up with the American public."

    Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases: Your view

    "Sooner than later, no one will care about loving gay and lesbian couples marrying any more than they care about their straight counterparts doing so," Jacobs said in a statement. "Each day of delay brings more suffering and hardship."

    Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com

    Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

    Edith Windsor challenged the Defense of Marriage Act after she received a $363,000 estate tax bill when her spouse died in 2009.

    The case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996, was brought by Edie Windsor, 83, of New York, who was assessed a $363,000 estate tax bill after Thea Spyer, her partner of 44 years, died in 2009. 

    The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, made it illegal for the State of New York to recognize the women's marriage in Canada. If Spyer had been married to a man, the estate she left Windsor wouldn't have been liable for taxes.

    "When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally and not like second-class citizens," Windsor said Friday. 

    "While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day," she added. "The truth is, I never expected any less from my country."


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the cases "present the Supreme Court with a monumental opportunity to affirm our Constitution's promises of liberty, equality and human dignity."

    "The journey is not finished, for as long as DOMA remains intact, then true equality remains out of reach," she said. "The clock is ticking on DOMA — it's time the Supreme Court strike down DOMA and Proposition 8, once and for all."

    But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group, said he was confident that the court "will recognize that DOMA is supported by numerous legitimate legislative purposes — all of which are consistent with our principles of federalism."

    "The argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to redefine 'marriage' lies outside our constitutional law," Perkins said. "Additionally, we believe that the people's vote on Proposition 8 should be respected."

    The court has never before waded into the highly contentious issue of same-sex marriage.

    "This is a monumental action by the Supreme Court, because we know they're going to say something about gay marriage for the first time ever," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the closely watched SCOTUSBlog. (SCOTUS is shorthand for Supreme Court of the United States.)

    Michael Klarman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said he thought it was likely that the court would invalidate DOMA.

    "There is some chance the vote won't even by 5-4, as some conservative justices who don't necessarily think there is a right to same-sex marriage will be troubled by the federalism implications of Congress' defining marriage rather than deferring to the states on this issue," Klarman, author of the forthcoming "From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage," told NBC News by email.

    As for the Proposition 8 case, Klarman was less willing to make a prediction, saying the justices could "reject the argument that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected, they could accept that argument or they could narrowly affirm the 9th Circuit and invalidate what California has done in a way that has no implications for any other state."

    He said the last option was unlikely, which means "I would guess they will either broadly embrace a right to same-sex marriage or reject it."

    Arguments are expected in March, with rulings likely by June.

    More content from NBCNews.com:

    • Woman survives six days in snow eating tomatoes
    • Shark bait? Rotting whale on Malibu beach raises fear
    • Mormon church website: 'Sexuality is not a choice'
    • 7 dogs rescued as police bust dog fight
    • Video: Deaf twins hear for the first time

    Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

    117 comments

    "In redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships, government would weaken marital norms, which would further delink childbearing from marriage and hurt spouses and children — especially the most vulnerable. It would deny a mother or father to a child as a matter of policy," the found …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: new-york, california, supreme-court, featured, same-sex-marriage, defense-of-marriage-act, proposition-8
  • 27
    Sep
    2012
    6:46pm, EDT

    DOMA challenged in estate tax case, one of the battlegrounds over the law

    Breaking Glass Pictures

    Edith Windsor, left, and Thea Spyer, partners for 44 years until Spyer's death in 2009, in an undated photograph. Windsor won a case against the Defense of Marriage Act in a district court, but that ruling is being challenged by the law's proponents in the U.S. House.

    By NBC News staff and wire services

    As same-sex couples wait for the Supreme Court to decide if it will hear one of five challenges to a law that bans federal recognition of gay marriage, opening arguments were heard Thursday in one such case in New York.


    Follow @NBCNewsUS

    The case before the U.S. 2nd Court of Appeals concerns Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a lesbian couple who lived together in New York City for 44 years and formally married in Canada in May 2007. While this case is still in earlier stages of the court process, attorneys have also asked the nation’s top court to bundle the case with the others in the legal battle against the Defense of Marriage Act across the nation.

    The state of New York recognized the marriage of Windsor and Spyers, but federal law did not because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.


    When Spyer passed away in 2009, Windsor was hit with $363,053 in federal estate taxes. Had they been considered spouses under federal law, she would have assumed Spyer’s assets, including their home, without incurring estate taxes.

    Windsor sued the government in November 2010.

    In June, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones in Manhattan ruled in Windsor’s favor, and declared the 1996 DOMA law unconstitutional, by discriminating against same-sex couples. That decision prompted the current challenge by proponents of the law.

    The Supreme Court has been asked to hear five different challenges to DOMA, including the Windsor case, in their next session, which opens Monday.

    "It is critically important for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear one or more of the DOMA cases," said Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal. "In addition to being barred from the protections, rights and benefits afforded under 1,138 federal laws, it is demeaning to married same-sex couples and their families to have their federal government treat them as legal strangers."

    In their next term, the justices could decide to take up one or more of the cases, none of them or simply delay considering the issue indefinitely.

    However, in comments last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she believes the Defense of Marriage Act will reach the Supreme Court within the coming year.

    Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com

    Each of the five cases that have been successful in district court challenges of DOMA’s Section 3 — the portion that defines marriage as heterosexual — that are now at various stages of appeal in circuit courts.

    Each focuses on different federal benefits that are currently provided for people in traditional marriages, but not for those in same-sex marriages.

    The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton after it appeared in 1993 that Hawaii might legalize gay marriage.

    Since then, many states have banned gay marriage through amendments to their constitution, but six have approved them, including Massachusetts and New York.

    In Feb. 2011, the U.S. Justice Department under guidance from President Barack Obama has said it would no longer defend DOMA in court because they believe it to be unconstitutional.

    Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter

    As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is spearheading appeals to uphold DOMA against challenges, acting on behalf of the legislative body.

    Lawyer Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of bipartisan group on Thursday told the appeals court that the Defense of Marriage Act was consistent with the intention of Congress to continue "preserving programs the way they've always been — not opening these programs to others."

    NBC's Kari Huus and Miranda Leitsinger and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

    More content from NBCNews.com:

    • Summer's over, but drought persists; two-thirds of contiguous US affected
    • Lucky 13 brings $202 million for Powerball ticket sold in Iowa
    • Authorities hunting for 73-year-old accused of killing his daughter-in-law
    • Video: Helmet camera captures soldier shot in firefight
    • No fix for 'Jesus rifles' deploying to Afghanistan

    Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

    Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

     

    200 comments

    Wow... They have been together for 44 years! Probably been together long than 65% of the other breeders err marriages...

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, same-sex-marriage, lgbt, defense-of-marriage-act, kari-huus, domo
  • 31
    May
    2012
    10:34am, EDT

    Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

    The Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples, was declared unconstitutional Thursday. NBC's Matt Lauer reports.


    Follow @msnbc_us
    By msnbc.com staff and news services

    Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

    The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.


    The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

    Watch US News videos on msnbc.com

    The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

    The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.

    Attorney Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, told msnbc.com that no decisions on legal strategy have been made.

    “But we have always been clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, and that has not changed,” he said.

    Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay married couples, said the court agreed with the couples that it is unconstitutional because it takes one group of legally married people and treats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible for benefits given to other married couples.

    "We’ve been working on this issue for so many years, and for the court to acknowledge that yes, same-sex couples are legally married, just as any other couple, is fantastic and extraordinary," said Lee Swislow, GLAD’s executive director.

    Earlier: Illinois same-sex couples sue for right to marry

    During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DoMA.

    An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

    More than 1,000 benefits in question
    Two California federal judges earlier said the act violated constitutional standards.

    Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled May 24 that the law legalized bigotry by withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits -- such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship -- from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.

    Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco also declared DoMA unconstitutional and ordered the government to provide family insurance coverage to the wife of a lesbian court employee. White's ruling has been appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the case in September.

    President Barack Obama withdrew his administration's defense of the law in February 2011, saying he considered it unconstitutional. House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.

    On May 9, Obama declared in an interview with ABC News his unequivocal support for gay marriage, becoming the first president to endorse the idea.

    Obama said, "I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient." He added that he "was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."

    Now, he said, "it is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married."

    Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Judge Michael Boudin, who wrote the decision, was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

    Groups slam, praise ruling

    • “Liberal federal judges in Massachusetts and California have resorted to making up legal standards in order to justify redefining marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of The National Organization for Marriage. “They realize the legal precedent doesn’t allow them to redefine marriage, so they are making up new standards to justify imposing their values on the rest of the nation. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to resolve this issue once and for all. … It’s obvious that the federal courts on both coasts are intent on imposing their liberal, elitist views of marriage on the American people.”
    • "We are thrilled that another court -- this time, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals -- has ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny respect to the marriages of lesbian and gay couples," said Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “We congratulate our colleagues at GLAD for achieving this wonderful victory."
    • "This is one more powerful statement now from an appellate court following four other federal courts that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible under the constitution and should be discarded," Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, told msnbc.com. "It’s obviously a great victory not just for families harmed by federal marriage discrimination but for the country. Hopefully it will help us get back to our normal practice of the federal government respecting the marriages celebrated in the states without a gay exception."

    Msnbc.com's Miranda Leitsinger and Jim Gold and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    • New tests shed no light on 'burning rocks' mystery
    • Teen in Mexico due to ‘Leap Day’ error can return home
    • EPA planes spying on ranchers? Lawmakers want answers
    • Video: IRS mistakenly sends waitress $400K refund
    • Video purportedly shows NYC student making out with his teacher
    • Man interviews for job, ends up getting detained for 1975 murder

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

    3755 comments

    YEAH ABOUT TIME

    Show more
    Explore related topics: civil-rights, gays, boston, same-sex-marriage, defense-of-marriage-act

Browse

  • featured,
  • crime,
  • military,
  • weather,
  • california,
  • updated,
  • florida,
  • environment,
  • us-news,
  • shooting,
  • new-york,
  • texas,
  • education,
  • chicago,
  • police,
  • gulf-oil-spill,
  • kari-huus,
  • nbcnewyork,
  • los-angeles,
  • murder,
  • new-jersey,
  • guns,
  • afghanistan,
  • obama,
  • colorado,
  • sandy,
  • trayvon-martin,
  • nbclosangeles,
  • barack-obama,
  • crime-and-courts,
  • politics,
  • gay,
  • veterans,
  • connecticut,
  • fire,
  • snow,
  • arizona,
  • crime-courts,
  • religion
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

NBC News contributor covering health, business, military and travel. @writerdude Author of "The Third Miracle: An Ordinary Man, A Medical Mystery and a Trial of Faith" (Random House, 2011).

Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor Blogroll

  • Bill Briggs on Twitter
  • Bill Briggs on Facebook

Archives

  • 2013
    • May (365)
    • April (608)
    • March (548)
    • February (510)
    • January (563)
  • 2012
    • December (457)
    • November (460)
    • October (477)
    • September (432)
    • August (525)
    • July (519)
    • June (508)
    • May (566)
    • April (538)
    • March (576)
    • February (471)
    • January (417)
  • 2011
    • December (455)
    • November (190)
    • October (9)
    • September (3)
    • August (51)
    • July (8)
    • June (3)
    • May (12)
    • April (5)
    • March (3)
    • February (1)
    • January (8)
  • 2010
    • December (5)
    • November (1)
    • October (2)
    • September (28)
    • August (40)
    • July (35)
    • June (177)
    • May (50)
    • April (9)
    • March (2)
    • February (2)
    • January (4)
  • 2009
    • December (5)
    • November (5)
    • October (2)
    • September (11)
    • August (4)
    • July (12)
    • June (1)
    • May (1)
    • April (1)
    • March (3)
    • February (3)
    • January (2)
  • 2008
    • December (3)
    • November (2)
    • October (6)
    • September (30)
    • August (26)
    • July (10)
    • June (4)
    • May (8)
    • April (13)
    • March (9)
    • February (7)
    • January (6)
  • 2007
    • December (10)
    • November (6)
    • October (22)
    • September (11)

Most Commented

  • Man with ties to Boston bombing suspect admits role in 2011 murders; shot during FBI questioning (2095)
  • Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth (4094)
  • Majority of Colorado sheriffs file suit against new gun laws (1914)
  • At least 51 killed, including 20 children, as tornado tears through Oklahoma (1804)
  • Scouts await decision on gay membership (2220)
  • Judge blocks Arkansas' tough new abortion law (1875)
  • Jodi Arias pleads for jury to spare her life, says, 'I want everyone's pain to stop' (853)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • Open Channel

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • US news on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise