Administration supports lesbian employee’s case

(San
Francisco) In a strongly worded legal brief, the Obama administration
has said the federal act that defines marriage as being between a man
and a woman was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians and is
unconstitutional.
The brief was filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco in support
of a lesbian federal employee’s lawsuit claiming the government wrongly
denied health coverage to her same-sex spouse.
The Justice Department says Karen Golinski’s suit should not be
dismissed because the law under which her spouse was denied benefits –
the Defense of Marriage Act – violates the constitution’s guarantee of
equal protection.
“The official legislative record makes plain that DOMA Section 3 was
motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and
their intimate relationships, and Congress identified no other interest
that is materially advanced by Section 3,” the brief reads, referring
to the section in the act that defines marriage as being between a man
and a woman.
Though the administration has previously said it will not defend the
marriage act, the brief is the first court filing in which it urges the
court to find the law unconstitutional, said Tobias Barrington Wolff, a
law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
“This brief represents the concrete manifestation of a complete
paradigm shift in the federal government’s position on anti-gay
discrimination and the constitutional rights of married same-sex
couples,” Wolff said in a phone interview Saturday.
The brief argues that gays and lesbians have been subject to a
history of discrimination by federal, state and local governments and
private parties. It also lays out the administration’s position that
sexual orientation is an “immutable characteristic,” that gays and
lesbians are minorities with limited political power and that sexual
orientation has no bearing on someone’s ability to contribute to society
and advances no legitimate policy interest.
“It’s quite powerful to have the administration saying in a court
filing that this kind of discrimination should be viewed suspiciously,”
said Tara Borelli, an attorney for Golinski.
Attorneys for a U.S. House of Representatives group that has stepped
in to defend the marriage act’s constitutionality in the Golinski case
did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In court filings, they have said that multiple courts have relied on
Congress’s justifications for enacting the law to uphold its
constitutionality.
Golinski is a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lawyer. She sued the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management last year for not authorizing family
health coverage for her same-sex spouse.
Her attorneys are now seeking summary judgment in her favor.