***
The attorney generals of Connecticut, New York and Vermont have jointly asked a federal appeals court to declare the unconstitutionality of a federal law that refuses recognition for same-sex marriages.
The federal statute, called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, defines marriage for all federal purposes as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.”
Because of DOMA, married same-sex couples in Vermont and other states are not eligible for a wide range of federal benefits and are treated as unmarried for federal tax purposes.
“These married couples – our friends and neighbors in Vermont – have every right to fair and equal treatment by the federal government,” said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. “Instead, they are denied Social Security benefits, tax exemptions, and health and retirement benefits. I am pleased to have worked with New York and Connecticut on this brief urging the Second Circuit to end this discriminatory practice.”
The joint filing by the three states is a “friend of the court” brief in a case pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. The brief emphasizes that states, not the federal government, regulate marriage and family relationships, and argues that Congress does not have authority to refuse recognition for same-sex marriages allowed under state law.
The case is Windsor v. United States, No. 12-2335, pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A Congressional group called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG, is defending DOMA. The U.S. Department of Justice has taken the position that the challenged provision of DOMA is unconstitutional.
As residents for almost 20 years of Norwalk, where we still own property, we now find ourselves living in Missouri, the first state in the union that wrote the definition of marriage into its constitution as between a man and a woman, and denying any rights to same-sex couples. We're very happy here. But we have to do so much work, carefully, to maintain any rights that our Connecticut marriage license might grant to us. We have been fortunate to live in communities where our relationship is not an issue at all. But what happens when something tragic enters into our lives? Will we be able to be of support to one another, or will we have to battle in the courts as well? Already our legal costs are higher so that we can protect transfer of property, have access to act for each other when there is a need for health care decisions, not to mention the financial implications of being denied any legal recognition of our status. Way to go Connecticut. Proud of you.