Comment on recent Mass. and Cal.

Cases on Same-Sex Marriage:

Perry v. Schwarenegger,

Background: Two same-sex couples brought action against Governor of California, Attorney General, Director and Deputy Director of Public Health, and county clerks, challenging California voter-enacted constitutional amendment restricting valid marriage as one between a man and a woman, and alleging violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Proponents of amendment intervened on behalf of defendants, and city and county intervened on behalf of plaintiffs. Holdings: The District Court, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge, held that: 1 witness was qualified to testify as expert in history of marriage in United States; 2 witness testimony constituted inadmissible opinion testimony that would be given essentially no weight; 3 constitutional amendment violated Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment; and 4 constitutional amendment violated Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Amendment unconstitutional. MarriageSame-Sex and Other Non-Traditional Unions Excluding same-sex couples from marriage was not rationally related to legitimate state interest, and thus California voterenacted constitutional amendment restricting valid marriage as one between a man and a woman violated Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment, although proponents alleged state interests including reserving marriage as union between a

man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage, proceeding with caution when implementing social changes, promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting, protecting freedom of those who opposed same-sex marriage, and treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; marriage licenses in California were not limited commodity, state had resources to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed, tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not further state interest, allowing same-sex couples to marry had at least neutral, if not positive, effect on institution of marriage same-sex couples' marriages would benefit state, parents' genders were irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes, amendment did not protect rights of those opposed to same-sex couples, and amendment hindered administrative convenience. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's Ann.Cal. Const. Art. 1, 7.5.

Gill v. O.P.M.

Synopsis
Background: Same-sex couples married in Massachusetts and three survivors of same-sex spouses, also married in Massachusetts, brought action alleging that, due to operation of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), they were denied certain federal marriage-based benefits that were available to similarlysituated heterosexual couples, in violation of equal protection principles embodied in Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Federal officials moved to dismiss, and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Holdings: The District Court, Tauro, J., held that: 1 court could not redress inability of surviving same-sex spouse of deceased federal employee to enroll in Federal Employees

Health Benefits (FEHB) program; 2 DOMA violated core constitutional principles of equal protection; 3 there was no rational relationship between DOMA and Congress's goal of preserving status quo; and 4 purported administrative burden presented by changing patchwork of state approaches to same-sex marriage in distributing federal marriage-based benefits did not provide rational basis for DOMA. Motions granted in part and denied in part. Constitutional LawMarriage and civil unions MarriageSame-Sex and Other Non-Traditional Unions There was no rational relationship, for equal protection purposes, between Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Congress's goal of preserving status quo pending resolution of socially contentious debate taking place in states over whether to sanction same-sex marriage; Congress had no interest in uniform definition of marriage for purposes of determining federal rights, benefits, and privileges, federal government had historically deferred to state marital status determinations, DOMA did not provide for nationwide consistency in distribution of federal benefits among married couples, and federal government recognized heterosexual marriages that would not be sanctioned in other states. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 1 U.S.C.A. 7. Constitutional LawMarriage and civil unions MarriageSame-Sex and Other Non-Traditional Unions Purported administrative burden presented by changing

patchwork of state approaches to same-sex marriage in distributing federal marriage-based benefits did not provide rational basis for Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA) exclusion of same-sex marriages from definition of marriage under federal law, for purpose of determining whether DOMA violated equal protection principles; federal agencies merely distributed federal marriage-based benefits to couples that had already obtained state-sanctioned marriage licenses, DOMA injected complexity into an otherwise straightforward administrative task by sundering class of state-sanctioned marriages into two, and DOMA's scope reached far beyond realm of pecuniary benefits. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 1 U.S.C.A. 7.

Mass. v. U.S. Dept. of H.H.S,

Synopsis
Background: Commonwealth of Massachusetts brought action challenging constitutionality of federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). United States moved to dismiss, and Commonwealth moved for summary judgment. Holdings: The District Court, Tauro, J., held that: 1 Commonwealth had standing to challenge DOMA's constitutionality; 2 DOMA exceeded Congress's power under Spending Clause; and 3 DOMA violated Tenth Amendment. United States' motion denied, and Commonwealth's motion granted. Constitutional LawFamily law; marriage Commonwealth of Massachusetts suffered sufficient injury in fact

to establish standing to challenge constitutionality of federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), where United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had informed Massachusetts Department of Veterans' Services that federal government was entitled to recapture millions of dollars in federal grants if Commonwealth decided to entomb otherwise ineligible same-sex spouse of veteran at state veterans cemetery, Commonwealth had already determined that veteran's same-sex spouse was eligible for burial, and Commonwealth had amassed approximately $640,661 in additional tax liability and forsaken at least $2,224,018 in federal funding because DOMA barred Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from using federal funds to insure same-sex married couples. 1 U.S.C.A. 7.

United StatesAid to state and local agencies in general Spending Clause legislation must satisfy five requirements: (1) it must be in pursuit of general welfare, (2) conditions of funding must be imposed unambiguously, so states are cognizant of consequences of their participation, (3) conditions must not be unrelated to federal interest in particular national projects or programs funded under challenged legislation, (4) legislation must not be barred by other constitutional provisions, and (5) financial pressure created by conditional grant of federal funds must not rise to level of compulsion. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, 8, cl. 1. Constitutional LawMarriage and civil unions MarriagePower to regulate and control MarriageSame-Sex and Other Non-Traditional Unions

United StatesAid to state and local agencies in general Provision of federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining terms marriage and spouse, for purposes of federal law, to include only union of one man and one woman induced Commonwealth of Massachusetts to violate equal protection rights of its citizens, and thus exceeded Congress's power under Spending Clause, where DOMA conditioned receipt of federal funding on denial of marriage-based benefits to same-sex married couples, though same benefits were provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, 8, cl. 1; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; 1 U.S.C.A. 7. MarriageSame-Sex and Other Non-Traditional Unions StatesFederal laws invading state powers Provision of federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining terms marriage and spouse, for purposes of federal law, to include only union of one man and one woman intruded on core area of state sovereignty, namely, ability to define marital status of its citizens, and thus violated Tenth Amendment as applied to Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where DOMA's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages caused state to face significant additional healthcare costs, increased state's tax burden for healthcare provided to same-sex spouses of state employees, and forced state to face possibility of returning funds used to build state veterans cemeteries, there was historically entrenched tradition of federal reliance on state marital status determinations, and compliance with DOMA would require Commonwealth to violate its own constitution. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 10; 1 U.S.C.A. 7.

3 Cases that cite this headnote 9 StatesPowers of United States and Infringement on State Powers Tenth Amendment attack on federal statute cannot succeed without three ingredients: (1) statute must regulate States as States, (2) it must concern attributes of state sovereignty, and (3) it must be of such nature that compliance with it would impair state's ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 10.