GLAD defends its win in "Gill" case

On Friday, Oct. 28, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Boston defending an earlier court ruling finding the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) unconstitutional.

GLAD's brief is in answer to an appeal brief filed by Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (BLAG) defending the law.

This challenge, known as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, was the first strategic case in the nation to be filed against DOMA. In July 2010, GLAD won the first-ever ruling at the district court level that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and GLAD's case is the first to reach a federal appellate court.

Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD said, "BLAG doesn't seem to understand that our plaintiffs are already married. They keep arguing against the right to marry and raising issues about why same-sex couples should be denied government marriage licenses. But the federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses; states do, and Massachusetts did. As a result, BLAG fails to justify why the Congress singled out one group of married people and denied them alone the same federal rights and responsibilities available to all other married people."

"When all is said and done, everyone knows what was going on in 1996. Some members of Congress were openly hostile to gay people and same-sex relationships," said Bonauto. "The official House Report admits DOMA's purpose was to express 'moral disapproval of homosexuality.' Others reacted instinctively against people who seemed different and an issue that seemed unfamiliar. Since there are no policy justifications that make any sense, all that remains is dislike and discomfort. That's why DOMA fails -- dislike and discomfort are not neutral policy reasons for singling out same-sex married couples for blatantly disadvantageous treatment."

Amici briefs supporting the district court judge's ruling on DOMA's unconstitutionality are due on Thursday, Nov. 3. BLAG then has one more chance to file a brief seeking reversal of the lower court ruling. Oral arguments before the appeals court could occur as early as in January 2012.

GLAD's second case challenging DOMA, Pedersen et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, was filed in the Second Circuit in November 2010 is fully briefed and awaiting decision from Judge Vanessa Bryant.