The federal Defense of Marriage Act could not be enforced to deny a federal employee the right to have her same-sex spouse covered under her health insurance plan, a U.S. District Court in California has ruled in granting summary judgment. The plaintiff is a staff attorney for the 9th Circuit who is married to her same-sex partner. The plaintiff purchases her health insurance through her employer. However, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management refused to authorize the enrollment of the plaintiff's spouse under the plaintiff's insurance policy, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.
At the request of President Barack Obama, the Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges. Previously, President Obama had espoused a policy of seeking to repeal the 1996 law via legislation while still defending its constitutionality when challenged.
The House of Representatives has failed to defend its federal marriage law, and it should be thrown out, attorneys for six gay couples and a gay widower said in recent court papers. Because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the gay plaintiffs have all been mistreated and denied federal benefits given to other married couples, said Mary L. Bonauto and her colleagues at the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) in briefs filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the constitutional rights of same-sex married couples or their survivors and is a constitutional exercise of authority by Congress, according to the U.S. Department of Justice in its brief to the 1st Circuit in a federal challenge to DOMA. Last July, a Massachusetts district court judge ruled in a pair of cases that DOMA infringed on powers reserved to the states under the federal Constitution and that the denial of federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples violates their equal protection rights.
SAN FRANCISCO | A judge in California has ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits recognition of same-sex unions is unconstitutional because it denies long-term health insurance benefits to legal spouses of state employees and retirees. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken also concluded Thursday that a section of the federal tax code similarly violates the civil rights of people in gay and lesbian relationships. Both laws were based on what she called "moral condemnation" of same-sex couples. Congress passed both laws that the Oakland, Calif.-based judge determined to be constitutionally suspect in 1996
For the first time, a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act has White House support. Yesterday the Obama administration announced its support for the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation filed by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein that would wipe the federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages off the books, the Washington Post reports. The bill would amend the U.S. Code to provide that, for federal purposes, "an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into.
Last week, New York became the sixth state -- plus the District of Columbia -- to allow same-sex marriage. The slow march toward equality continues. We won't again make the case today for why same-sex couples deserve equal treatment under the law. If you are among the declining number of people who believe otherwise, a couple of paragraphs will not convince you.
In the latest move in the largely partisan battle over the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate have filed bills to repeal the measure, which denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples. On Wednesday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., along with 108 co- sponsors, introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, H.R. 1116 in the House. That measure provides in part that "an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
The Edward Thomas Hospitality Corp | However Smith | John Bullard | Imperialist America | Kong Jaw | Afiliacion a la seguridad social | terrorismo de estados unidos | financiacion de proyectos | Pena nocturna | prostitution au maroc
