Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits

A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.

Levenson married his longtime partner, Tony Sears, on July 12, 2008, during the five-month period when same-sex marriage was legal in California. A ballot measure, Proposition 8, was passed a year ago defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Reinhardt, who is the federal judge responsible for resolving employee disputes in the Federal Public Defenders office within the 9th Circuit, had earlier ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to process Levenson's application for spousal benefits for Sears. The federal government's Office of Personnel Management stepped in to derail the enrollment, however, citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage for the purpose of federal benefits or programs.

Levenson appealed, seeking either an independently contracted benefits package for his spouse or payment of the equivalent value of the coverage denied. Reinhardt ordered the latter, based on a "back pay" provision in the law covering federal defense lawyers' employment.

"Considering that the federal government won't give Tony the equal benefits package of other spouses, we are very pleased with this decision," said Levenson. "Is it equal treatment? No. Is it a good remedy? Yes. And we are appreciative of the judge's order."

Levenson said he and Sears have been keeping track of the costs of insuring Sears independently and estimate the back pay and future compensation will amount to thousands of dollars each year.

The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act. Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

The Obama administration has spoken out against what it sees as a discriminatory policy toward gay spouses of federal employees but Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has also said his office is obliged to defend the practice as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains law.

-- Carol J. Williams

Use The Times' interactive map to track changes in rights for same-sex couples in the U.S. since 2000

Comments

[Robert T. Green]

Yeah for equality!!!

[Rhonda M.]

That is such a mess! That five-month period when same-sex marriage was legal. So same-sex marriage is illegal in California now, except for those few who made it within that time frame. That's a mess!

Man + Woman = Offspring
Woman + Woman / Man + Man, etc. = PERVERSION

[Archangel]

Does anyone with a micro-shred of remaining rationale ever consider that; "...the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law..." is in itself a discriminating clause?
To consider WHICH perversion or choice of orientation is allowed while disallowing or ignoring some other practitioner’s choice of sexual (or otherwise) orientation is clearly discriminatory.
It is no secret that gay aligned groups such as National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which self-describes itself as a "support group for intergenerational relationships," has been pushing for 'equal rights' to have sex with minors. The National Coalition of Gay Organizations (NCGO), since 1972, has called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent" at the state level. Is it fair for society to continue discriminating against such abominable BEHAVIOR?
Never judge any organization by their superficial presentations, especially the "gay" agenda. This 'special rights' platform has a far more reaching goal. Contrary to the issues that brought about 1964 civil rights advances for those who are BORN of color, special accommodations for behaviors represent a serious danger to the stability of maintaining a progressive and enlightened society.
It is not unreasonable to bypass this insanity of political correctness and require any group applying for inclusion for special protections PROVE conclusively that they are, first and foremost, BORN THAT WAY! Otherwise society would be forced to adopt flawed laws equally to those that could claim a need to have sex with or marry children, animals, objects or what have you. Serial murderers could claim special ‘orientation’ or proclivity to their crimes based upon some provable mental disability.
At this point of scientific study, so-called "gays" would soundly fail this condition. Behaviors must never be considered a security blanket for protecting the rights of self-serving choices.

[Tom]

The plaintiffs were legally married, so gay or not, it was not proper to deny them benefits. If, however, they were not legally married, denial would be proper under the current laws.

[mtlm]

Regardless of your position on the issue, if federal law says no benefits may be paid, how is this judge honestly able to come to this decision? Is he blatantly ignoring the federal law and putting CA state law above it? Does he really think ordering back payment of the premiums is not still paying benefits? Or, is this a clearly incorrect decision meant to force the issue up to a higher court? Any of the above should get this judge kicked out of his position for not doing his job, which is to interpret and apply the current laws accurately.

How is no one picking up on this? Apparently I'm naive enough to believe that the media still pretends to be unbiased in its reporting, that judges are not politicians and that reason is respected.

[Pete the Fed]

This decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

[sal]

@Rhonda M:

Perversion? In what sense? You have a view of marriage that is based on religion. Remove religion from your agrument, then explain why "Woman + Woman / Man + Man, etc. = PERVERSION."

[Jay]

Federal Law supercedes California Law- California cannot exempt itself from DOMA. This is a pathetic decision. And, I wholly support Gay Marriage. But it must be done legally, and not by an attention-craving judge.

[christina]

you bigots disgust me. accept the fact that everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law.

EVERYONE.

you homophobes are a dying breed. if you want to hide behind religion, as many of you often do, try to remember "judge not lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

last i checked, jesus said love thy neighbor. he didn't say "love thy neighbor unless he is homosexual"

i applaud this decision.

[BigDaveH]

What are you so afraid of?? My marriage hasn't suffered because someone I don't even know wants to marry a person of the same sex. And what are these arguments equating pedophilia and homosexuality? Are you that afraid that you have to make things up, bring in the boogeyman?? Grow up into the 21st Century with the rest of us!

[Mike]

Marriage as a legal term should be removed from all levels of government. The only legally recognized union should be a civil union. Marriage should be relegated to the religious organizations to conduct. This would move everyone to a level legal playing field, resolve all of these inane cases, and so forth. It won't stop some people's complaints since there will always be someone unhappy no matter what is done. But, having spoken with a number of very religious people, I suspect most people would be happy with such an outcome. The Feds / states could easily classify all marriages as civil unions and allow any who want to call themselves married do so via their particular church's blessing.

[marc]

the (lack of) intelligence in these comments is stunning.

it doesn't matter what the law says. the ruling is that DOMA requires unconstitutional actions by the government.

and so, DOMA cannot be enforced.

maybe the ruling will be overturned, who knows. but this much is undeniable: the older, anti-gay people in this country -- people like those below, who insist on using words like "perversion" -- will eventually die. and they are being replaced by young people who think very differently about the topic. and once enough of those wretched old people are finally buried, gays will have their civil rights.

Rhonda M...Archangel...mtlm...what's it like - being the cranky old lunatic who needs to die before progress can be made?

Let's hope that time comes sooner than later.

[frank carter]

A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

WHY NOT! the entire country is going down the drain anyway just give the money away...we have all this wars going on at the same time some say for security reasons........what about the homeless that we saw sleeping on the parks and all the major cities around the country?

[bkl]

It's Judge Stephen Reinhardt. He's in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The words Reinhardt, 9th Circuit, and overturned by the Supreme Court are inseparable. There is no chance that this decision will survive a challenge by the Justice Department representing the Federal Government.

[Mer]

mtml: I just read the entire decision. The federal judge determined that DOMA was unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of the states in which they are domiciled. He was, in fact, doing his job when he addressed that issue and he did so quite eloquently, if I may say.

Archangel: If you can't see the legal distinction between being gay and being a pedophile, then you are beyond assistance. Furthermore, by operating under the clearly false belief that sexual orientation is a choice, you are doing a disservice to yourself. It's time to get real. Gay is a choice as much as gender and race are. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're going to wake up one day and realize you're on the wrong side of history.

Rhonda: The mess wasn't caused by the California Supreme Court accurately interpreting the state constitution. The mess was caused when a simple majority of those who mistakenly believe they have the authority to impose their religious values on the rest of us decided to amend the constitution.

[Ron Raglin]

Rhonda M. and Archangel should be ashamed of their homophobic hate filed comments.

[Mac]

mtlm, the judge isn't putting California law above Federal law. He's putting the US Constitution above Federal law, which is proper. (For another example, it is proper for a judge to put the Second Amendment above laws that contradict it.)

[bobby]

Hmmmmm. I didn't know due process in the 14th amendment was extended to homos?

[Lizard]

Archangel, a tip: Reasonable people stop paying attention to you when you use phrases like "so-called 'gays.'" Rhonda, same goes for you and your "perversion." We're talking about loving, committed couples here. Join the 21st century---we'll welcome you with open arms.

This is a good result, and more evidence that DOMA is going to come crashing down before too much more time passes.

[Ann Weaver]

I am there with you Robert Green. When you divorce marriage from its core purpose (not sole) of procreation, then you render then institution farcical. Same-sex marriage confers no benefits to society and is no more valuable to a given society than a person marrying an animal or an inanimate object. Marriage exists in every society on earth for the purpose of facilitating the next generation. To put it in Robert's terms: Heterosexual Marriage=A future and Same-Sex marriage=Extinction. Nature is not politically correct. Persons of the same-sex do not have body parts that are meant BY NATURE, to function sexually together. Therefore homosexuality is, in the trustiest sense of the word, a perversion of the sex instinct.

[Ann Weaver]

Also, I wrote an extensive paper defending traditional marriage titled: The Traditional Marriage Apologia: The What, Why and How Arguements to Defend Traditional Marriage and the Heterosexual Norm. It can be found by cutting and pasting the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/tag/protect%20marriage

[Joe Mustich, JP]

Why are some folks so afraid of marriage?

Can I vote on your marriage? Of course not. So please find another more pressing issue, as life's to short. Find love.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

Kudos to CT for supporting equality and fairness!

[Don]

To those commenters who seem obsessed with same-sex "perversion", the real perversion is to the Constitution's equal protection clause by those attempting to treat some of our citizens as second class by denying them equal treatment under the law.

[Don R.]

As usual. As soon as there is any victory for equal treatment under the law, the Haters come out like a bunch of zombies, spewing all kinds of venomous, hurtful, bigoted, and just downright mean rhetoric... and let me guess... you're Christian too! Right? Love how the conservatives have come to represent the policies of hate, exclusion, discrimination, and elitism. And all of them, whether they say it explicitly or not, are taking their lead from selected perspectives of the bible, overlooking the more fundamental message of the bible, which is to treat all people with kindness, decency and love. I'm so sorry for you people who are so full of hate. Must be a sad way of living....although I wont tell you you cant live your life that way. That's your line.

[Dave]

Hey, Archangel...

At this very moment, as I write this, I am gay.

At this very moment, as you read this, you are not gay.

And yet, the only difference in our behaviors is that I am writing and you are reading.

Can you prove that you were born heterosexual? No, you can't. You just know that you were.

I can't prove that I was born homosexual. But, I know I was.

Get over it. Thanks, and have a nice day :)