Judge: Same-sex spouses of legally wed feds are entitled to benefits

A federal judge ruled on Thursday that denying the same-sex spouses of legally married federal employees access to benefits such as health care is unconstitutional.

Joseph L. Tauro, a U.S. District Court judge for the district of Massachusetts, ruled in favor of a group of gay federal employees who argued that, due to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, they have been denied certain federal marriage-based benefits, including spousal participation in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, available to married heterosexual couples. The employees argued, and the judge agreed, this violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection principles.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, when a Massachusetts court ruled that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was not permitted by the commonwealth's constitution.

"I am thrilled that my family will now be treated in the same way as those of my married co-workers at the post office," said Nancy Gill, who is a plaintiff with her spouse, Marcelle Letourneau. "Marcelle and I married out of love and commitment to each other first and foremost, but federal recognition of our marriage means that we'll have equal access to important protections for our two children and for ourselves."

According to Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which brought and argued the case, Gill is a 22-year employee of the U.S. Postal Service.

Prior to filing suit, Gill and each of the other plaintiffs had made a request with the appropriate federal agency to be treated as married with respect to federal benefits. All the requests were denied, with each agency citing the Defense of Marriage Act's mandate that the federal government recognize only heterosexual unions.

Tauro took issue with these rejections on a number of grounds, shooting down congressional justifications for DOMA, including the argument that it was necessary to preserve scarce government resources.

"While this court recognizes that conserving the public fisc [treasury] can be a legitimate government interest …this court can discern no principled reason to cut government expenditures at the particular expense of plaintiffs, apart from Congress' desire to express its disapprobation of same-sex marriage," Tauro wrote.

Tauro also ruled the subject of domestic relations falls entirely under state -- not federal -- jurisdiction, and the power to establish requirements for marriage is at the core of domestic relations. While DOMA attempts to skirt this issue by not directly placing restrictions on the states' power to issue marriage licenses, the government has argued Congress has an interest in a uniform definition of marriage for the purposes of determining federal rights, benefits and privileges, he wrote.

"There is no such interest," Tauro ruled. "The government is certainly correct in its assertion that the scope of a federal program is generally determined with reference to federal law. But the historically entrenched practice of incorporating state law determinations of marital status where they are relevant to federal law reflects a long-recognized reality of the federalist system under which this country operates."

The only relevant distinction when determining eligibility for benefits based on marital status is between married individuals and unmarried ones, Tauro determined.

"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution," he noted.

The Justice Department will decide within 60 days if it will appeal Tauro's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. President Obama has said he would support legislation providing health care benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.