A major win for equality. A federal judge has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and ordered the federal government to extend health benefits to the same-sex spouse of a San Francisco lawyer employed by the federal courts. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who was appointed by George W. Bush, ruled the 1996 law defies the guarantee of equal protection.
AP's Lisa Leff:
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said that because DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples, the government's refusal to furnish health insurance to Karen Golinski's wife is unjustified.
"The Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law ... by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse," White wrote in a 43-page decision that marks the third time in less than two years a federal court has declared the act unconstitutional.
Golinski, a staff lawyer for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been trying to secure spousal benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis, since shortly after the couple got married during the brief window in 2008 when same-sex marriages were legal in California. ... When White heard the case in December, the head of the department's civil division, Tony West, appeared on Golinski's behalf, leaving the job of arguing for DOMA to a lawyer hired by a House of Representatives group. The lawyers representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group convened by House Speaker John Boehner did not immediately respond to an email to their offices sent after business hours Wednesday.
Golinski sued the Office of Personnel Management and its openly gay director, John Berry, over its refusal to authorize the coverage. More background from Lamda Legal:
Judge White's ruling is the latest victory in a battle that began in 2008, when Golinski, a 20-year employee of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sought to enroll her wife, Amy Cunninghis, in the employee health plan. It is the first DOMA-related ruling since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice had determined DOMA was unconstitutional and would no longer defend it, and the majority leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives hired outside counsel to defend the discriminatory statute. A similar ruling holding DOMA unconstitutional in a separate case is on appeal in the 1st Circuit.
Golinski's struggle to enroll her spouse in the family health plan, a benefit routinely granted to her married heterosexual co-workers, travelled a torturous path, including two separate orders by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski directing that Golinski be allowed to enroll Cunninghis in the health plan, orders ignored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), citing DOMA. In April 2011, Lambda Legal and Morrison & Foerster filed an amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Judge White heard arguments on this amended complaint on December 16.
White found that animus and hostility towards gays "is clearly present" in the history of the law. That's because the federal government has traditionally "refrained" from intervening in spousal relations. "The Court finds that the passage of DOMA, rather than maintaining the status quo in the arena of domestic relations, stands in stark contrast to it," White wrote.
White also issued a permanent injunction "preventing the government from further interfering with Golinski's ability to enroll her wife in the insurance program," adds Reuters.
The Republican-led House of Representatives could appeal White's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently declared California's Prop 8 as unconstitutional.
Golinski v OPM is one of a number of federal challenges to the Defense of Mariage Act. Section One defines a marriage as the union between a man and woman only. Section Two allows states the option of not recognizing valid same-sex marriages. Section Three prevents same-sex couples who are legally married from enjoying more than 1,000 federal benefits awarded to heterosexual married couples.
The statute's provision denying same-sex spousal benefits was also declared unconstitutional in a July 2012 Massachusetts case. That ruling is on appeal before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
Six states currently mandate marriage equality—Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York—as does the District of Columbia. Last week, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed legislation to make Washington the seventh state. That legislation is expected is to head to the ballot in a voter referendum.
The case was heard in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Karen Golinski vs. United States Office of Personnel Management and John Berry 10-257 can be read HERE.
