Domestic Partners Join DOMA Health Care Lawsuit

A federal judge on Thursday allowed same-sex partners in domestic partnerships to join a lawsuit challenging an aspect of the embattled 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that has prevented long-term health coverage being offered to the same-sex partners of state employees in California.

The suit in question is one of two currently in the hands of Bay Area federal judges that challenges DOMA’s lack of federal recognition and its resulting denial of benefits.

In this case, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, of Oakland, was faced with the decision of whether to allow domestic partners to join the suit against DOMA’s restrictions after the Obama administration argued that only same-sex spouses should be allowed to sue for long-term health care coverage on grounds that Congress already decided the issue of rationally limiting such tax breaks to married couples at the exclusion of domestic partners whether same or opposite sex.

However, Wilken decided that his was not an appropriate standard in this case because same-sex couples in California have been and are now once again unable to marry and are therefore de facto relegated to domestic partnerships. Given that Congress and state Legislatures have, on several occasions, highlighted the “marriage-like” status of domestic partnerships, the judge decided that the union is, at least for the purposes of this legal question, valid.

This decision, while limited and largely procedural, adds cause to think that Wilken is inclined to overturn the law, or at the very least that DOMA’s perceived overreaching nature is here in serious question.

From the AP:

While the ruling determined only that the suit can proceed on behalf of registered partners as well as spouses, Wilken indicated – as she did in another ruling a year ago – that she is inclined to overturn the law.

Federal officials “have failed to show a plausible, legitimate rationale for excluding registered domestic partners from (the law’s) list of eligible family members (for the tax benefits), and the court can think of none,” Wilken wrote.

She said Congress had taken numerous actions to deny recognition or benefits to same-sex domestic partners, including its refusal from 1992 through 2001 to allow Washington, D.C., to spend any funds to establish a local domestic partner registry.

This ruling is set to add hundreds of couples to the ongoing lawsuit.

The Obama administration in February of 2011, following a lengthy legal review, announced that it would no longer defend DOMA Section 3 in court, believing it unconstitutional. This case, however, serves to show that contrary to errant reports, the administration is still actively defending other legal aspects of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Image used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to Jack Newton.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Robert H.

8:19PM PST on Jan 30, 2012

....equal protection under the law. What is so hard to understand?

send a green star

Hugh M.

9:56PM PST on Jan 29, 2012

great!

Sandra L.

3:18PM PST on Jan 29, 2012

Robert O, beautifully said, "Gay rights are human rights. Equality is for all human beings!"

Natasha L.

12:20AM PST on Jan 29, 2012

Thanks for the post

Fred K.

11:56AM PST on Jan 28, 2012

The Disease of Marriage Act was a Komrad Klinton error, yes, a Liberal error. It should be put down like any diseased rat, and like everything else done during and after Komrad Klinton invaded the Whitehouse on an ACORN fraud vote. Klinton broke stuff and lied about the rest; Shrub (Bush JR) was too stupid to fix what Klinton broke, and then trash from Kenya blew in and broke more things. Turn it back to 20 Jan 1993 - or better yet to 1988 and mount a massive effort against ACORN so Klinton gets kicked out on his ear. No more DOMA, no more DADT, no more DMCA, no more NAFTA or GATT, no more RealID or Pervert (PATRIOT) acts, no more walking violations of the Constitution manifested in a Kenyan village idiot. Scrap the Mexican Maginot!

Andrew C.

10:10AM PST on Jan 28, 2012

Homophobia
In order to be a homophobe it has to occupy a significant part of your brain, and this means that homophobes are thinking about men/women rubbing penises/vaginas together in a 24/7 gay porno. That’s an awful lot of gay thoughts for supposedly straight people who hate gays. I bet even gay people don’t think about gay stuff as much as homophobes do.

Homophobes (aka Anti-Gay Movement) are not protesting against bestiality, pedophilia (with/without a priest involved), rape, sexual exploitation, or any other form of non-consensual sexual act in which a victim is forced against their will to participate

The Homophobes are protesting a private sexual act being performed by two consenting adults.

HOMOPHOBE = I DON’T LIKE GAY (SUPPOSEDLY) THEREFORE NO ONE SHOULD BE GAY.

Homosexuals = fighting for the right to control their own behavior.

Homophobes = fighting for the right to control other peoples behavior.

Sharlene H.

8:55AM PST on Jan 28, 2012

Is the Obama administration defending this DOMA or is the Republican led Congress? I get so angry when everything is "Obama's Administration" that is to blame. Why don't people say it the way it is.

It is not Obama, per say, or his administration (ie all the people who are democrats) It is the Congress or certain people in the senate or congress. But the saying "Obama's administration". Is taken to mean Obama, himself personally.

No one man can oversea everything that is going on in Washington, if he could he would be Superman, with super intellect, thoughts, maybe like a Super Computer.

Let's start saying what we mean, Obama's Administration if we hate Obama, the Democrates if we hate Democrates, The Republicans if we hate Republicans, or just the Name of a stupid person who put out a stupid law. Or the name of the Office that passed something, and whether it is controlled by Repugs or Dems.

Obama doesn't say he did something when something good is done, he says the name of the organization or group of organizations who did the action. To blame one person for the acts of thousands is kind of counter intuitive.

Wake up people, use your minds, find out what is being said and why it is being said. What is the purpose behind the use of these words. Don't be like Politifact, and assume something that hasn't been said, as being said and the truth.

Lynne B.

8:12AM PST on Jan 28, 2012

DOMA should never have been passed. It needs repealing. I hope that all groups are successful in this lawsuit against DOMA

Doug A.

8:03AM PST on Jan 28, 2012

America needs to be drop-kicked into the 21st century. This 1946 redneck mentality that the conservatives cling to is totally out of touch with reality. We need to do a lot of house cleaning during the next election if we are ever to move into the future. If not we will be light years behind everyone else, and find ourselves isolated from much of the civilized world.

Cathryn C.

7:44AM PST on Jan 28, 2012

@Robert O. . . the first thing the religious right needs to understand is that marriage is not and never was historically a religious institution. At least not until the Middle ages. It was instead a civil institution designed to establish the right of ascension, inheritance and accounting for the parentage of children. It was also used to cement political ties among royal families and nobles. It was overseen by civil authorities (Judges, Kings, town leaders) as well as religious authorities (shamans, priests and priestesses) as a recognition of the ties that bound two families together, but not as a sacriment between man and woman before a God. More than anything else it was used to legitimize heirs. But this is something they do not understand and apparently can't.

DOMA should never have happened. This country has recognized domestic partnerships since it's very beginning. Common Law Marriages (Domestic partnerships at it's basic level) have been recognized since the first boat landed here.