Federal Court in Pennsylvania to Decide Death Benefits Dispute Involving a Surviving Same-Sex Spouse

A death benefits dispute between a surviving same-sex spouse and the decedent’s parents took center stage on Monday, March 12^th, when U.S. District Court Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard oral arguments from the attorneys for the parties.  This case is being closely watched across the nation because it is the first case in which a private employer has claimed that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) prohibits it from providing equal benefits to same-sex spouses.  While the principal parties in the case – the surviving spouse, Jennifer Tobits, and the decedents’ parents, David and Joan Farley – both argued that the Court need not address the constitutionality of DOMA to resolve their dispute and instead, only analyze and interpret the language of the pension plan, the potential implications of the Court’s decision are momentous.  If the Court concludes that DOMA applies to the pension plan at issue, the ruling would result in a unprecedented extension of DOMA to private, non-governmental actors and jeopardize the rights of numerous private employees who are married to same-sex spouses and currently entitled to benefits under the private pension plans of countless employers, including small businesses, Fortune 500 companies, and law firms.  Teresa S. Renaker, one of Ms. Tobits’ attorneys, pointed out to the Court that any such application would be a “radical expansion of DOMA’s reach far beyond its intended public-sector scope and into private-sector employment.”

Ms. Tobits legally married Sarah Ellyn Farley in Canada in 2006, a mere two weeks before Ms. Farley was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.  After battling the disease together for four years, Ms. Farley died in 2010 at the age of 37.  After Ms. Farley’s death, Ms. Farley’s parents, who never approved of their daughter’s sexual orientation or her marriage to Ms. Tobits, attempted to collect Ms. Farley’s pension plan proceeds from her employer, Cozen O’Connor, a national law firm where Ms. Farley worked for six years as an attorney in its Chicago, Illinois, office.  Under Cozen O’Connor’s pension plan, a surviving spouse receives a deceased employee’s death benefit and “spouse” is defined in the plan as the person to whom an employee has been married for at least one year.  Nothing in the plan states that same-sex spouses are excluded.  Rather than paying the benefit to Ms. Tobits, Cozen O’Connor instead initiated this lawsuit, claimed that DOMA prevents it from paying the benefit to Ms. Tobits, and asked the Court to decide who is entitled to the benefit.  Because the Court asked the parties to address the constitutionality of DOMA in the context of resolving this dispute, two governmental entities intervened in the case – the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) of the United States House of Representatives.  The DOJ contends that DOMA is unconstitutional and should be stricken, while BLAG defends DOMA.

Notably, during the pendency of this federal action, an Illinois state court ruled that Ms. Farley and Ms. Tobits were legally married in Canada and that Ms. Tobits is entitled to all of the rights and protections afforded to spouses under Illinois law.  This ruling resulted from a probate action filed by the Farleys after their daughter died in which the Farleys falsely claimed that their daughter was single and asked the court to appoint Ms. Farley’s father as the administrator of his daughter’s estate.  In reaching its decision, the Illinois court rejected the Farleys’ claims and appointed Ms. Tobits, the surviving spouse, as the administrator of Ms. Farley’s estate.

What We’re Reading: 2011 was a Banner Year for LGBT Rights

Many online publications have been calling attention to the huge gains advocates have made towards equality for LGBT people this year. While we must recognize that we still have awhile to go to reach equality for all United States citizens, it is important to also celebrate our victories. Below we have compiled a list of some of our favorite stories. Please add your own favorite LGBT victory from 2011 in comments.

• New York became the largest state to legalize same-sex marriage
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a historic speech, insisting that the protection of LGBT individuals from discrimination is an essential part of the international effort to further human rights
• For the first time, two women shared the traditional “first kiss,” a Navy homecoming tradition
• Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the policy that barred gay servicepeople from serving openly in the military, was repealed
• President Obama and Attorney General Holder issued a letter to Speaker Boehner stating that the Administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that opposite-sex marriage is the only marriage allowed under federal law
• President Obama’s administration extended benefits to federal employees in same-sex domestic partnerships through executive order

Major Strides for Marriage Equality

Last week, President Obama determined that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law enacted in 1996 that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional. Although Obama opposes same-sex marriage, the president has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court.  His explanation is given in a statement by the Attorney General:

Given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.

Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

While determined unconstitutional by the president, the act will still be enforced unless and until Congress repeals it or if a court delivers a “definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.” This may come sooner rather than later based on a report by the Huffington Post that Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler and “quite a few co-sponsors” are planning to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA.

In addition to President Obama’s shifting views, on Thursday, the Maryland State Senate voted in favor of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which grants same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle marriage how they see fit.  The bill is expected to make its way to the House Committee this week.

Meanwhile, about 5,000 miles away in Hawaii, Governor Neil Abercrombie signed a bill legalizing civil unions.  The law, effective January 1, 2012, allows couples, regardless of gender, to form civil unions which provide all the legal rights of marriage.  While civil unions, says Alan Spector, of Equality Hawaii, are not marriage,

They at least provide — on a state level — the concrete, tangible, legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. We still don’t have the social significance and the social meaning of marriage … but getting us to civil unions — psychologically and legally — is such a major barrier to cross.

While we’re thrilled with the strides are being made on behalf of gay rights, we’re disheartened that the issue of marriage equality is still met with strong resistance from politicians and lawmakers across the country.  To read the entire statement about the unconstitutionality of DOMA given by the Attorney General, click here.  To show your support for the President’s decision to determine DOMA unconstitutional, click here.

Hope for Civil Unions in Hawaii (and the rest of America)

According to the Associated Press, Hawaii is the closest it has ever been to legalizing civil unions. Just over 10 years ago, Hawaii was the first state to adopt the nation’s first “defense of marriage” constitutional amendment, which granted the state legislature the power to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples. This amendment, however, leaves open the possibility of civil unions for gay couples. Earlier this month, the state House of Representatives passed the civil union bill, which now awaits approval by the state Senate and possible veto by Republican Governor Linda Lingle. If passed, Hawaii will be the fifth state to legalize civil unions, and the only state in the western United States to do so.

This situation in Hawaii is exemplary of a conversation on civil unions that is being held across America. The issue is reaching a breaking point for many, which speaks to the need for some kind of short-term compromise to avoid long-term disaster.  This weekend, the New York Times published an op-ed piece written by two men who have very different views on same-sex marriage but are in agreement on a possible solution. They propose that Congress grant federal civil unions, which would give same-sex couples all or most of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. In compromise, however, the government would recognize the civil unions only in states which provide religious-conscience exceptions, allowing religious organizations the right to not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The compromise might not be ideal for all, but it at least speaks to the possibility of compromise and provides us with some ideas for the future of same-sex marriage in the United States.