28
04/11
House to Defend U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, Boehner Says
By James Rowley
(Updates with Pelosi comment in eighth, ninth paragraphs.)
March 4 (Bloomberg) — The Republican-controlled House of Representatives will take steps to defend a U.S. law banning federal recognition of gay marriage, a statute the Obama administration concluded is unconstitutional.
House Speaker John Boehner said he will convene a leadership group to take action to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The Justice Department has told courts it won’t defend the constitutionality of the law, which bars gay married couples from collecting federal benefits when eligibility is determined by marital status, such as Social Security survivor payments.
“The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts — not by the president unilaterally — and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution,” Boehner said in a statement.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Feb. 23 the Justice Department’s conclusion that the law, passed by Congress with bipartisan majorities, discriminates against gay couples who were married in jurisdictions where such unions are legal.
Five states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriages. A gay marriage measure has passed one house of Maryland’s legislature.
Boehner said he will convene a bipartisan leadership group, which is controlled 3-2 by Republicans and has authority to instruct the House counsel to take legal action.
‘Indefensible’ Law
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, a member of the leadership group, called the law “indefensible” and said Boehner’s decision was a “distraction from our most pressing challenges.”
The legal effort “will cost the House hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars,” said Pelosi of California.
The Obama administration said it will continue to enforce the law’s prohibition of benefits such as joint-filing status on federal income tax returns for married couples.
At a March 2 hearing on the Justice Department’s 2012 budget, Republican lawmakers questioned Holder about whether his decision was politically motivated.
“Considering the fact that DOJ has vigorously defended the law in the past, can you see why this would be viewed as a case of political opportunism?” Virginia Republican Frank Wolf asked Holder.
“What we did was apply the facts and the law in a neutral and detached way and made the determination” to stop defending the statute, Holder said.
Death of Spouse
In a New York federal court, Edith Schlain Windsor is seeking $350,000 in estate taxes she says she shouldn’t have been required to pay on the death her spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, whom she married in Canada in 2007.
Another challenge to the law in Connecticut involves a retired Navy employee, Joanne Pederson, who sued after the government wouldn’t let her enroll her female spouse for federal health-insurance benefits.
The government said in 2004 that there were 1,138 federal programs — such as veterans’ survivor benefits, Social Security and government pensions — for which eligibility was determined by marital status.
The cases are Windsor v. U.S., 1:10-cv-8435, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, and Pedersen v. OPM, 3:10- cv-1750, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut.
–Editors: Laurie Asseo, Ann Hughey.
To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net