Widower of Congressman Fights for Same-Sex Marriage Benefits
Dean Hara was married to
U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay man in Congress. Hara and
Studds married in Massachusetts on May 24, 2004, shortly after same-sex
marriage was legalized in the state. Studds passed away October 14, 2006
after suffering a pulmonary embolism, and his widower ran into some
problems.
Gay marriage has been
legalized in Connecticut and Massachusetts, but same-sex marriages are not
recognized under federal law. Because of
the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, Hara has been unable to receive the
pension generally provided to surviving spouses of former members of Congress
or Studds' Social Security benefits.
Under the Defense of
Marriage Act, states are not obligated to treat same-sex couples who were legally
married in another state as married couples. The law also specifies that
the federal government will under no circumstances recognize same-sex
marriages. This means, among other things, that same-sex married couples
may not file joint federal tax returns or collect a deceased spouse's Social
Security benefits. In total, there are more than 1,000 federal laws that
differentiate on the basis of marital status. So long as the Defense of
Marriage Act remains in effect, same-sex spouses who are legally married are
considered single under each and every one of those laws.
The Defense of Marriage Act
was passed under the Clinton administration, in anticipation that some states
would pass laws legalizing gay marriage. During his campaign, President
Obama said he would repeal the law.
On March 3, the law
officially came under fire when Boston-based legal group Gay and Lesbian
Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit against the federal government
on behalf of a group of same-sex spouses and widowers. Hara is one of
those litigants.
The lawsuit was filed in
Boston and directly challenges the Defense of Marriage Act directly by claiming
a provision of it is discriminatory because it denies married gay couples
access to a large number of federal programs and legal protections provided to
opposite-sex married couples.
This isn’t the first
challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, but it’s the first group litigation
challenging the Constitutionality of the law. Given past rulings, it
seems unlikely that the United States Supreme Court would rule the law
unconstitutional, and the case could take years to wind its way through the
legal system. Given President Obama’s statements on the law, it is
entirely possible that the case will become moot through changes to the law or
outright repeal before the high court is asked to make a determination.
