GLAD files second lawsuit against DOMA

Plaintiffs from CT, VT, NH challenge specific federal programs.

A challenge of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was expanded Tuesday, Nov. 9 to include new gay and lesbian plaintiffs from Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Tuesday filed the organization's second lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA's Section 3, which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states in which marriage equality is legal.

"DOMA must fall. In 1996, when Congress passed DOMA, the stated goal was to harm gay people and same-sex families with this law, and sadly, it has succeeded. Married gay and lesbian couples fall through the federal safety nets that exist for other married people," said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD. "We have to keep the pressure on and get DOMA off the books before it does even more harm."

In the new lawsuit -- Pedersen et al. v. Office of Personnel Management -- GLAD represents five legally married same-sex couples and a widower who have all been denied equal protections and benefits under the law.

"Getting married was extremely meaningful to Ann and me," said Joanne Pedersen, who, with her spouse Ann Meitzen, is a plaintiff. "We were shocked to discover that the federal government essentially looks on ours as a second-class marriage."

According to GLAD, Pedersen focuses on certain federal programs -- addressing DOMA's denial of marriages in connection with federal employees and retirees benefits programs, Social Security benefits, survivor benefits under federal pension laws, work leave to care for a spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act, and state retiree health insurance benefits that are controlled by federal tax law. GLAD expects more plaintiffs who have paid additional federal income taxes because they cannot file a joint federal tax return as a married couple to ultimately join the suit once they are officially turned down for refunds from the IRS.

Bonauto said the suit was filed "on behalf of a number of married couples...and one widower, all of whom are legally married, and recognized as such in their home states of Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire." Bonauto spoke to reporters during a conference call from Hartford, Conn. hosted by GLAD's Carisa Cunningham.

"By defining 'marriage' as [between] different-sex couples only, DOMA refuses even to recognize the state-licensed marriages of same-sex couples," Bonauto said. "The result of that across the board in every federal program is that DOMA operates to require the federal government to deny all federal rights, protections, and responsibilities associated with marriage to married same-sex couples. The government itself tells us there are 1,138 federal laws and programs that use marital status to distinguish eligibility. These are protections that are routinely and regularly available to other married couples and individuals."

In addition to GLAD's new DOMA lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed Windsor v. USA, a separate suit that also challenges DOMA's constitutionality. For more information about Windsor, please visit http://bit.ly/ca46Cw.

The plaintiffs from GLAD's original DOMA challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, are from Massachusetts. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in two separate July 8 decisions (in Gill as well as Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's challenge, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services) that Section 3 is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice appealed both decisions on Oct. 12.

"Every day that DOMA stands, it arbitrarily divides married couples into two categories," said Gary D. Buseck, GLAD's Legal Director. "And the extra burdens that DOMA has imposed on Massachusetts families since 2004 are now being endured by families in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire."

The Pedersen plaintiffs include Joanne Pedersen and Ann Meitzen of Connecticut; Jerry Passaro of Connecticut; Raquel Ardin and Lynda DeForge of Vermont; and Janet Geller and Jo Marquis of New Hampshire. Two couples will soon be added to the challenge: Suzanne and Geraldine Artis of Connecticut; and Bradley Kleinerman and James "Flint" Gehre of Connecticut.

"We have a 13-year-old son and 10-year-old twins -- soon to be 11. DOMA has prevented us from filing our taxes as one family unit. This hurts our family financially," Pedersen plaintiff Geraldine Artis said during the conference call. "We are forced to make choices about what activities our children can participate in. All of our children love to sing, and would love to play a musical instrument. We're not able to provide that for them at this time.

"This is the financial strain that DOMA has placed on my family. This is why we're a part of this case."

Widower Jerry Passaro spoke about the passing of his late husband, Tommy Buckholz, who died of lymphoma. "While caring for him, we lived on our savings until there was nothing left. Tommy worked for Bayer Pharmaceutical as a peptide chemist for 40 years," Passaro said. "Before his passing, we were assured that the pension he had worked for would serve as a financial cushion for me when he was gone. However, because of DOMA, I am not eligible for any entitlement on a federal level."

Joanne Pedersen and Ann Meitzen are still struggling because Meitzen can't share Pedersen's health benefits. "I loved my job as a special security officer for the Office of Naval Intelligence," Pedersen said. "The naval community treated Anne just like other spouses, except when it came to sharing my benefits. We both have serious health challenges, and Anne has chronic health issues that make working stressful and draining for her, but Anne can't afford to retire because DOMA prevents us from sharing health benefits."

GLAD's legal team in Pedersen is led by Mary L. Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary D. Buseck, with Staff Attorneys Janson Wu and legal fellows Liz Monnin-Browder and Ashley Dunn. Co-operating counsel on the case include Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), and Horton, Shields & Knox (Hartford).