Thursday, July 9, 2009

State Suit Challenges U.S. Defense of Marriage Act - NYTimes.com

State Suit Challenges U.S. Defense of Marriage Act - NYTimes.com

By ABBY GOODNOUGH

BOSTON — The Massachusetts attorney general, Martha Coakley, sued the federal government Wednesday to overturn a section of the law denying federal benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages.

With the suit, Massachusetts becomes the first state to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996 and prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts was also the first state, in 2003, to grant gay couples the right to marry; five other states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont — have since followed. The challenge, filed in United States District Court here, comes as President Obama and Congress face increasing pressure from gay rights groups to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ms. Coakley, a Democrat, said the act interfered with states’ rights to define and regulate marriage as they saw fit. While same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts — Ms. Coakley said more than 16,000 have done so — they are denied federal benefits like Social Security survivors’ payments, the right to file taxes jointly and guaranteed leave from work to care for a sick spouse.

“We cannot and should not be required to violate the equal-protection rights of our citizens in Massachusetts who choose to be married,” Ms. Coakley said, adding that the act forced the state “to disregard the marriages of same-sex couples when implementing federally funded programs.”

The suit also highlights two state programs affected by the Defense of Marriage Act: Medicaid, which provides health care coverage to low-income residents, and the burial of veterans and their spouses at cemeteries owned and operated by the state. The suit names as defendants the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the United States.

The Defense of Marriage Act has drawn renewed attention in recent months as more states have legalized same-sex marriage or come close to doing so. (In one of those states, Maine, opponents of same-sex marriage said Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures to get a question on the November ballot asking voters to overturn the new law.)

Mr. Obama repeatedly called for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act during his presidential campaign, and gay advocates have criticized him for what they call a failure to make a priority of that goal in his first few months on the job. Last month, the Obama administration extended some partnership rights to federal workers in same-sex relationships — allowing them to take leave to care for sick partners, for example. But several of the nation’s most prominent gay political leaders quickly said that was not enough.

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, reiterated Mr. Obama’s support for repealing the act on Wednesday and said, “We will review this case.”

Ms. Coakley has expressed interest in running for the United States Senate; some political observers consider her a contender for the seat of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who has been fighting a malignant brain tumor. On Wednesday, however, she said that she was planning to seek re-election to her current post.

The state’s suit is similar to one filed in March by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the legal advocacy group that successfully argued for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. But that challenge, brought on behalf of a small group of same-sex couples and widowers, focuses more narrowly on equal protection as applied to certain benefits.

Gary Buseck, the group’s legal director, predicted that the two suits would eventually be joined and said the state’s involvement would add heft.

“To have the chief law enforcement officer of the commonwealth taking the position that we take — that the federal government discriminates against married same-sex couples — is a good thing,” Mr. Buseck said.

Katie Zezima contributed reporting from Boston.

No comments: