In Which DOMA Is One Step Closer to Going The Way of DADT

The repeal of DADT is for many the defining moment of queer progress in 2011. It’s an unquestionably positive, for servicemembers and America as a whole, and even better, the momentum of that victory might still be bringing us towards equality. There are already several lawsuits pending against DOMA, which the government has already indicated it no longer has any intention of defending, and they’re starting to pile up. This week those groups opposing DOMA reiterated their commitment to seeing it end, and they now have the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on their side. Although DADT means that military personnel are no longer required to keep their families and partners secret, they also don’t get the same rights as straight spouses, like housing benefits or military IDs. Despite their tendency to put the word “gay” in “scare quotes,” The New American correctly observes that now that members of the military can talk about their families publicly, they’re talking about how they want them to have equal treatment.

“As plaintiffs, we are fighting to receive the same benefits and opportunities as our married heterosexual counterparts,” said [Charlie Morgan] in a statement issued by SLDN. “This discrimination causes undue financial and emotional hardship for our families.” Additionally, Morgan said she recently had a recurrence of cancer and worries “every day that my health may take a turn for the worse, and Karen [her partner] would be unable to receive the survivor’s benefits to help take care of our daughter. We are only asking for fair and equitable treatment as a recognized family.”

Several members of the armed services filed a lawsuit against DOMA on October 27 with the District Court of Massachusetts, arguing among other things that DOMA represents “a threat to national security” because soldiers can’t be sure that their families are safe or secure. Their lawsuit joins many others, including but not limited to Windsor v. United States and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Several of these lawsuits have been around for years, but this week we might finally see progress — there’s a hearing scheduled in the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 3, in which the judiciary committee will debate legislation connected to a repeal and discuss the Respect for Marriage Act.

After the hearing, the lawyers that the House of Representatives has (confusingly) hired in spite of the dictate of our own Department of Justice, will have a chance to respond. Paul D. Clement, who’s said to be earning as much as 1.5 million, has until Dec. 1 to respond. So far the slow demise of DOMA has looked like a series of briefs back and forth — the anti-DOMA briefs inspiring and and intelligent, and the ones from Clement’s team, well, less so. There are plenty of bright legal minds who believe that DOMA is inarguably unconstitutional, and most of Clements’ arguments so far have been the same tired shtick that didn’t hold up in the Prop 8 trial. Can his response bring something new that might change the game? For 1.5 million, the House seems like they’re betting on it.

DOMA has kept families all over America from enjoying the rights of first-class citizens since 1996. DADT haunted us from 1993 to 2011, when America and the Pentagon were finally able to recognize that hurting the people who wanted to help keep America safe wasn’t making anyone better off. If those same people can also testify that keeping families from having the rights of everyone else in America isn’t helping anyone either, will it finally make a difference? Maybe starting on November 3, we’ll get a chance to find out.

 

Avatar of Rachel

Rachel is Autostraddle's Senior Editor and the editor who presides over books as well as news and politics coverage. Originally from Boston, MA, Rachel currently lives in Michigan. Her favorite Ciara video is probably "Ride," but if you're only going to watch one, she recommends "Like A Boy."

Rachel has written 736 articles for us.

12 Comments

  1. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    I really like the new lawsuit being filed. I’d love to see homophobic representatives try to explain how gay people’s families don’t count in terms of national security and happiness of the soldiers.

    And really, the existence of DOMA confuses me… Why is there a push for a federal amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage if it’s already effectively illegal on a federal level?

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      A federal anti-gay marriage amendment would mean that states could not individually legalize gay marriage as has happened in NY, MA, etc. So it’s the holy grail of anti-gayness. There is also not much chance of them ever getting it because they’d need significant numbers of Democrats to vote for it to just get it through Congress (I believe it takes a two-thirds threshold to get a constitutional amendment through, which is why it’s bloody hard. So it’s really all about something to gee up the homophobic troops and get them donating en masse.

  2. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    It’s interesting how DOMA is suppose to defend marriage when in actuality it isn’t defending families. Those backing DOMA also promote their agenda by proclaiming the importance of the nuclear heteronormative family as the basis for this country’s success. Truth is families are sometimes a person’s only support system, and what truly matters in that support system are the individuals regardless of gender and/or sexual identity. If our government continuously fails to not acknowledge the differences in families it will continue to contribute to the falsification of this country’s representative democracy.

  3. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    DOMA causes pay and benefits to be cut up to FORTY PERCENT ($250,000 over a career) for armed forces personnel whose spouse is of the same sex. No other American employer (private, non-profit, or government civilian) does anything so unfair as this.

  4. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    LGBT issues will be the undoing of the Republican Party. I
    hope the GOP candidiates in 2012 are continuously asked for
    the reasoning behind their positions on the rights of LGBT people
    and are challenged with back-up questions every time. Make them
    reveal their irrational and hateful atttitudes. Simply to say
    “I support traditional marriage” means nothing. I support
    traditional marriage too but understand (and it took me a long
    time to reach this point )that LGBT people have rights that must be respected and upheld. Down with DOMA and Prop 8

  5. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    It’s a state issue.
    It’s a state issue.
    It’s a state issue.
    STATES DECIDE!
    STATES DECIDE!

    And yet…

    “Of course, there’s still a long list of federal benefits that will remain out of reach. Since the federal Defense of Marriage Act — which defines marriage as between a man and a woman — is still being enforced, gay couples in New York will still need to file SEPARATE FEDERAL TAX RETURNS. They will NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SPOUSAL or SURVIVOR BENEFITS. And they will continue to OWE EXTRA INCOME TAXES on their spouse’s health insurance benefits — a cost that opposite-sex married couples don’t have to pay.”

    http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/how-gay-marriage-will-change-couples-financial-lives/

    Motherfucking state issue my ass. Cowards.

  6. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    AND, of course, immigration is a federal matter. So gay people/second class citizens currently can’t sponsor their foreign-born spouse – and my American girlfriend can’t live in her own country, because I can’t get a K1 visa to go with her.

Contribute to the conversation...

You must be logged in to post a comment.