Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

-- Carol J. Williams

Comments

[Jason]

civil marriage = civil right

[B.Free]

Let’s be clear. The Constitution does not grant anyone the right of marriage. It does grant equality. Is this a case of discrimination? You bet! Just because you “believe” marriage is only between a man and a women, does not make it so. Just because your “holy” book says so, doe not make it so. It just means that your small minded religion that wants to exert its control over you says that such a union is against their God’s rules. Since our so called “secular” government is in the job of protecting Constitutional rights and since this government made the mistake of “recognizing” marriage it is bound by the constitution to apply the laws regarding discrimination equally to all. If healthcare benefits were allowed to the grandparents of blonde participants and not redheaded participants, that would be discrimination. Get where I am going with this. It does not have to be about race, color or gender. Discrimination can take on many guises. If you church wants to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, then that is ok by me. But, do not think your short sighted, small minded ideology has any power over what the state or federal government can deem worthy of protection. If the government is doing what it is suppose to do, all our rights will be protected. You right to believe a hateful and judgmental ideology as well as the rights of the insured person who happens to be married to a partner of the same sex.

If you want to gripe about something try the fact that single people’s health insurance premiums are covering all those “family” Plans. If you want real equality in the insurance world, make families pay for each member equally. That way the single people of this country will not be discriminated against and the side bonus is that couples (of differing sex) will take very good care about how many babies they make. Of course all those religions out there may not like this to much…you know, that go forth and multiply crap. Can’t do that if you’re queer.

[kennem]

Actually, B.Free, we DO need to be clear: the Constitution DOES grant the right of marriage, in supreme court cases dating back six decades.

Perez v. Sharp, 1948: "Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws." That was in the California case that allowed mixed-race couples to marry.

Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (US Supreme Court): "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978 (US Supreme Court, concurring opinion): "The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected." In this case, even deadbeat dads have the constitutional right to marry.

Turner v. Safley, 1987 (US Supreme Court): Even prisoners serving time in prison have the constitutional right to marry.

So the question is, since marriage is a constitutionally-protected right for opposite-sex couples, including interracial couples, for deadbeat dads, for prisoners - why is it not so for law-abiding, taxpaying, lawn mowing same-sex couples?

State supreme courts in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut have all decided that, since the constitution provides for equality, marriage obviously must be a constitutionally-protected right for same-sex couples as well.

[Why can't we all just get along?]

James Oas: actually, marriage was not created by your christian god. If you take a quick flick through wikipedia, you'll see that Ancient Rome had marriages, and plenty of them (including same-sex ones), well before when you believe that Jesus was born, and China, a non-christian country, has had marriage since around 5000BC. In addition, it wasn't until the 1500s that priests were actually required to be present at a marriage - prior to this, any witnesses to the couple declaring "I marry you" were fine - which coincides quite nicely with the time when the church really started grabbing power, wealth and status for itself in a way that would make Jesus weep.

What gets me most about christians like you - other than the fact that you act in such a hateful way that your god would disapprove of - is that your eyes are so tightly closed. Go on, open them, question the world, question what you've been ordered to believe - have faith in yourself, a creature that you believe is of God's invention, to do the right thing without having to have someone else tell you how - that's what God would want you to do, and you might even find a stronger faith within yourself.

[Bing Jou]

Since neither the State of California nor USA recognizes gay marriage, domestic partners are legally NOT spouses. A health insurances policy that insures only spouses should not be forced by a judge to cover a domestic partner. This is a legal issue. If a judge can redefine a marriage, we'd be in a big trouble. Let's say, 3 persons who love each other and live together and have a wedding among themselves and call their union a marriage and family. Would there be unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation when an insurance company refuses to give benefits to all the spouses involved? A judge has no authority to decide if such a union be qualified as a family protected by and under the law. The Court’s decision expands its power to alter the definition of a family spouse without clarifying the murky ground of gay rights and interferes without a sound legal ground a private enterprise to conduct its business. It is a bad decision.