Press Conference to Introduce the Respect for Marriage Act (Photo credit: Jerry Nadler)JOANNE PEDERSEN, et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
: 3:10-cv-1750 (VLB)
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL :
MANAGEMENT, et al., :
Defendants, :
:
v. :
:
OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF :
REPRESENTATIVES , :
Intervenor-Defendant. : July 31, 2012
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [Dkt. #60] AND DENYING INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS [Dkt. #80]
Plaintiffs, homosexual individuals legally married to individuals of the
same sex under the laws of the States of Connecticut, Vermont, and New
Hampshire, bring this suit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996), codified at, 1 U.S.C. §7, (“DOMA”), as a
violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection. Plaintiffs’
Complaint requests declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking a judgment
declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and void and an order permanently
enjoining the federal government from administering and enforcing DOMA’s
definition of “marriage” and “spouse” to exclude homosexual couples legally
married under state law from receiving recognition and benefits under theplethora of federal laws which rely on DOMA’s definitions. Currently pending
before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #60] filed by the
Plaintiffs asserting that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, along
with a Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #80] filed by the Intervenor-Defendants, the
Bipartisan Legal Advisor Group of the United States House of Representatives,
(“BLAG”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. As both
motions seek ultimate resolution of this matter, the Court will consider and
review the motions simultaneously, addressing the fundamental question of
whether or not Section 3 of DOMA can withstand the applicable level of
constitutional scrutiny.
***
IV. Conclusion
In sum, having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both
BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational
relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no
conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore
violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED, and Intervenor-Defendant BLAG’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______/s/ ___________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: July 31, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment