Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

House Republicans intervene to defend DOMA against challenge from military veteran

DOMA Repeal

By Scottie Thomaston

When the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group moved to intervene in cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, authorization was given to “defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.” The BLAG panel vote was 3-2 along party lines. Now, it’s been announced that they will be defending DOMA against a challenge by a US Army veteran and that they will also defend another law, Section 101(3), (31) of Title 38, related to military benefits. Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Whip Hoyer say this exceeds the authority given to BLAG:

The lawsuit — like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s McLaughlin v. Panetta lawsuit — raises claims based on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and two specific provisions of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, which relate to veterans benefits and independently define “spouse” as only pertaining to opposite-sex spouses.

It is the defense of those provisions in Title 38 that Pelosi and Hoyer claim fall outside the scope of the original authorization on March 9, 2011. At that time, the five members of BLAG voted 3-2 along party lines to recommend that the House general counsel “take such steps as he considers appropriate … to protect the interests of the House in litigation in which the Attorney General has ceased to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.”

The House leaders have written a letter, which reads in part:

Today, we were notified that the House, through outside counsel acting at your direction, has decided to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of laws denying federal benefits to military spouses on the basis of their sexual orientation. As members of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who were not consulted prior to this unwise decision, we strongly object to spending taxpayer money to intervene in this case against a decorated veteran, Tracey Cooper-Harris, and her spouse, Maggie Cooper-Harris. This decision clearly exceeds the scope of the original BLAG authorization, with which we initially disagreed.

This intervention once again puts the House of Representatives on the wrong side of the future – supporting discrimination, unfairness, and the denial of basic equality to all Americans. We have objected to prior decisions by the House Republican BLAG members to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend discrimination. This latest decision not only ignores the civil rights of LGBT Americans but opens a new, direct assault on veterans. The men and women of our Armed Forces serve with courage and dignity on behalf of our safety and security. They risk their lives for the country they love – and they should not face prejudice at home because of whom they love. These brave soldiers deserve nothing less than our gratitude, our respect, and the benefits they have earned in battle.


Chris Johnson at The Washington Blade
has written about this case, Cooper-Harris v. US before, noting that the United States government is denying a military veteran spousal benefits that she would receive if she were in an opposite sex marriage. And this is in spite of the fact that she suffers from multiple sclerosis connected to serving her country:

“We’re only asking for the same benefits as other married couples,” Tracey said. “We simply want the same peace of mind that these benefits bring to the families of other disabled veterans. And that is why we filed a federal lawsuit challenging this policy. No family should have to go through what we’ve had to experience, and our nation shouldn’t allow the Defense of Marriage Act to deny the last wishes of our veterans, but it is happening.”

Tracey served for 12 years in support of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and received more than two dozen medals and commendations before being honorably discharged in 2003. In 2008, she married Maggie in California before Proposition 8 took away marriage rights for gay couples in that state.

After being diagnosed in 2010 with multiple sclerosis, which the Department of Veterans Affairs has determined is connected to her military service, Tracey began receiving disability benefits as a veteran. However, she’s unable to receive spousal benefits that she would otherwise be entitled to if she were in an opposite-sex marriage.

The Southern Poverty Law Center worked on a similar case in the 1970s, Frontiero v Richardson a pivotal case for women’s equality:

As a result of the lawsuit, known as Frontiero v. Richardson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that female veterans should have the same access to benefits as their male counterparts. Levin said the discrimination faced at that time is similar to that faced by the plaintiffs now.

“These men and women made the same and endured the same sacrifices as other members of the military, yet this policy devalues their service, commitment and sacrifice,” Levin said.

Frontiero, who was also present at the news conference, said the lawsuit on behalf of Cooper-Harris is “a logical extension of the case” filed 40 years ago.

“Tracey is fighting the same battle I fought, which is not to have our work deemed second rate or second best,” Frontiero said. “We serve like everybody else, and we deserve what everybody else is getting.”

Levin said after SPLC won the Frontiero case in 1970s, Congress changed the statutes related to military benefits to define spouse as a person of the opposite-sex to ensure female veterans would have access to spousal benefits.

There is also the obvious point that now, the Republican-led House is not just going out of its way to defend a discriminatory law against a United States veteran with medical problems, but they are taking the extra step of defending a whole different law, possibly beyond the original terms of their agreement and vote. This is a questionable tactic and given that absolutely no one is currently happy with them over their defense of this law, the fact that they’re now attacking military veterans won’t win over any new supporters.

27 Comments

  • 1. Scott Wooledge  |  March 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    I should be happy. But it's just a scuffle. At the end of the day we KNOW Boehner will get his money, and Pelosi and Hoyer will have through a momentary wrench in the process.

    Ultimately the case will need it's day in court. And for that we'll need a defense counsel. (As we learned in Prop 8.)

  • 2. Richard Lyon  |  March 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    This could be almost as good as the grief that Maggie Thatcher suffered when she canceled the children's milk allowance. The chant became.

    Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher.

    We need to work up a version of that for Bohner.

  • 3. Scott Wooledge  |  March 30, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Er, through = thrown.

  • 4. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    Yeah but it might not have even been necessary. After all Gill is next week and other cases will reach appeals courts well before this one. Seems like overkill.

  • 5. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    HEH oh god, we do.

  • 6. Kathleen  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    For the record, BLAG hasn't yet filed a motion to intervene in this case.

  • 7. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Yeah, Metro Weekly says it's supposed to be filed April 2nd.

  • 8. Scott Wooledge  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    The question of the two military statutes will still have to be answered even if we prevail in Gill.

    Regardless Gill won't be settled until probably 2014, since whoever loses appeal this summer will take it to the SCOTUS.

  • 9. MightyAcorn  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    John Boehner, Rights Profaner?

  • 10. MightyAcorn  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    BLAG-gie Boehner, Hate Sustainer?

  • 11. MightyAcorn  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    BLAG and Boehner, sittin' in a court
    Stealing taxes– don't support!

  • 12. MightyAcorn  |  March 30, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    I'll stop now.

  • 13. Steve  |  March 31, 2012 at 5:02 am

    As noted at the end, ironically it was Frontiero v Richardson that led to that language being inserted into Title 38. Those bits aren't meant to prevent recognition of same-sex couples. That was unthinkable in the 70s. It was supposed to be more gender neutral than what was there before.

    In that light, defending these two paragraphs and assigning a whole new meaning to them is even more questionable

  • 14. truthspew  |  March 31, 2012 at 9:17 am

    I've often said that the repeal of DOMA will be propelled by the repeal of DADT..

    The reason I said it is because now that you can be yourself in the military, some of them may well marry. And once they try to exercise the rights and privileges granted military veterans, they're finding out that DOMA stand in their way.

    And you really don't want to upset a veteran. They have these ways of organizing, of getting what they want. So DOMA's days are numbered.

  • 15. Sagesse  |  March 31, 2012 at 10:16 am

    I agree. Unequal benefits for servicemembers and their families is offensive, and there's no way to spin it so that it isn't. DADT repeal was the beginning of the end for DOMA.

  • 16. RWG  |  March 31, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Overkill? Really? This vile, discriminatory law cannot be killed enough. I say we should drive every stake we can into its evil heart over and over until it is dead, dead, dead.

  • 17. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  March 31, 2012 at 11:56 am

    […] you missed Scottie’s breaking post last night, House Republicans vote to intervene in yet another DOMA […]

  • 18. RWG  |  March 31, 2012 at 11:58 am

    The Right Wingers, the GOP and the gay haters could see this coming. This is precisely why they fought so hard to stop the repeal of DADT.

  • 19. cr8nguy  |  March 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    does anyone know when we should hear about the en banc issue for Perry v Brown? it should be soon, no?

  • 20. Lymis  |  April 1, 2012 at 7:01 am

    Remember when everyone was saying "75% of Americans support repeal and it is a non-issue among the troops, so what's the problem?"

    This is it – it's a lot easier to scare people with images of scary gay predators than to justify screwing over the family of a military servicemember – or explaining just how that servicemember is a threat to society.

    And a lot of people also wondered why marriage and DADT should be such priorities. Again, precisely this. Now veterans will be going home to all those red states having worked with openly gay people and knowing that they aren't scary, and we'll eventually have the veteran's groups on our side. That's not a minor issue.

  • 21. Ed Cortes  |  April 2, 2012 at 6:47 am

    boner and profaner don't rhyme! hehe

  • 22. Neil  |  April 2, 2012 at 9:42 am

    I doubt their thinking is that sophisticated. They just don't like being told they are wrong.

  • 23. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  April 5, 2012 at 11:00 am

    […] it’s owned by its defenders and they are the ones stuck with the task of doing things like defending the law against a United States veteran who got multiple sclerosis as a result of her job. And admitting that it is not defensible under […]

  • 24. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  April 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    […] reported last week that the Republican-led House would be intervening to defend DOMA against a challenge from a […]

  • 25. Volunteer Guatemala  |  May 9, 2012 at 3:13 am

    They are hypocrite and conservative. If they'd admit, things would have been better till now.

  • 26. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  May 30, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    […] being denied under the Defense of Marriage Act. The Republican-led House, through BLAG, had filed a motion to intervene in the case to defend DOMA, and then several responses and counter-responses have been […]

  • 27. click here  |  March 13, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    The best part of working online is that I am always home with the kids, I save a lot of money.
    Learn more aboyt whuich get paid for taking surveys potentials you can gain from the a large number of.

    Cleaning companies use their own cleaning equipments and skilled personnel whoo
    can easily operdate them.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!