ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Defense of Marriage Act

Justice

How A Top GOP Economist Convinced A Federal Court To Strike Down DOMA

Douglas Holtz-Eakin

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is one of the Republican Party’s top economic pundits. He served as a top advisor to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) 2008 presidential campaign. He organized an amicus brief which the Eleventh Circuit relied on heavily in its decision striking down the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that his brief is riddled with factual errors and miscalculations. And he is one of the nation’s top evangelists for the idea that we can solve our economic woes simply by saving rich people from the crushing burden of having to pay their fair share of taxes.

Before Holtz-Eakin began his second career as a salesman for Republican economic policy, however, he actually was a serious economist. In 2004, Holtz-Eakin served as Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and he was asked to analyse the impact on the federal budget of eliminating the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and extending marriage equality throughout the nation. According to the top Republican economist, opposition to marriage equality cannot be squared with the GOP’s supposed devotion to deficit reduction, as marriage equality slightly reduces the deficit:

The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person’s eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions—ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners’ eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)—in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving “benefits, rights, and privileges.” In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.

According to last night’s federal court decision holding DOMA unconstitutional, Holtz-Eakin’s economic analysis is not simply an interesting historic artifact — it’s also a body blow to the forces trying to protect anti-gay discrimination from the Constitution. In defending the law, anti-gay Members of Congress proposed four reasons why they believed excluding gay couples from their constitutional right to marry is somehow justified, among them a claim that DOMA “is justified as an enactment designed to conserve scarce government resources.” Holtz-Eakin’s analysis refutes this claim, and the district court relied upon it in explaining why DOMA must go down.

In many ways, the resurrection of Holtz-Eakin’s days as a non-partisan economist is a metaphor for why conservative efforts to cling to anti-gay discrimination are doomed to failure. The most intriguing line in yesterday’s opinion is when it characterizes DOMA as an attempt to “establish[] an across-the-board federal definition of marriage limiting it to heterosexual couples, and preempting any opportunity to test the impact of state laws evolving to recognize same-sex marriage.” When marriage equality was nothing more than an idea, conservatives could scare the nation with warnings that gay couples would recruit your children, raise your taxes and destroy your marriage. Now it is a reality in many states — even if the federal government still needs to extend benefits to these couples — and the parade of horribles that anti-gay groups predicted never made it out the gate.

Holtz-Eakin’s memo demonstrates, however, that anti-gay discrimination was doomed even before America got its first taste of marriage equality. Reality leaks through, even if Congress does everything in its power to keep it away.

NEWS FLASH

Federal Judge Finds DOMA Unconstitutional | Last night, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in California ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in a case called Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Clinton-appointed federal judge found that DOMA violates the Constitution’s equal protections clause due to the fact that, along with a provision of the state’s tax law, it limits same-sex couples and domestic partners from fully participating in the California Public Employees Retirement System. This marks the first federal court decision on DOMA since President Obama announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage on May 9. Two other judges and a bankruptcy court have similarly ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

LGBT

Senate Takes Significant Step With Domestic Partnership Benefits Bill

Our guest blogger is Ben Harris, intern for LGBT Progress.

Yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed legislation that extends health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.  Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the bill, called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act, which if passed into law would extend health insurance and a number of other workplace benefits to federal employees and their same-sex partners.

Because of discriminatory laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gay federal employees do not have full access to benefits currently afforded to straight federal employees and their spouses. Without access to health insurance through their partners, many gay individuals must either purchase costly insurance plans in the private market or forgo health insurance, a considerable financial risk should be they become seriously ill. Yesterday, the Senate committee advanced a bill that would significantly alleviate that risk and bolster economic security for gay couples in the federal workforce.

Passing this bill out of committee is long overdue. Not only does this mean equal treatment for gay employees in the federal workforce, it also ensures that we attract the best and brightest workers into public service. When it was introduced back in November, Senator Collins remarked :

COLLINS: This change is both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare.

She’s right. Eighty-six percent of Fortune 100 companies offer equal health care benefits to employees with same-sex partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign. And research shows that when you treat gay workers equally on the job, what results is a happier, healthier, and more productive workforce.

Some, like Governor Rick Snyder (R) of Michigan, who recently vetoed a bill to extend domestic partner benefits to state employees, oppose equality in the workplace because they say it costs too much. They’re wrong . The take-up rate for domestic partner benefits is extremely low and it is likely that the boon from attracting a more talented and productive workforce outweighs any costs of providing equal benefits to gay couples.

What’s more, passing laws that extend workplace benefits to gay employees is politically popular. A whopping 8 in 10 Americans believe gay employees should be given equal benefits on the job. Even Mitt Romney agrees. Just last week, after restating his opposition to marriage equality, he voiced his support : “My view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate.”

Conservatives and corporations should take a cue from the American people: workplace equality is critical to fostering a more efficient and effective government.

NEWS FLASH

LGBT Groups Launch New Campaign For Same-Sex Military Families | Though Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is no longer law, same-sex military couples are still detrimentally impacted by the Defense of Marriage Act and in some unique ways. Same-sex military spouses are not entitled to survivor benefits, and would not even be contacted if their partner was harmed or killed in combat. Freedom to Marry and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network have teamed up to launch a new campaign called Freedom to Serve, Freedom to Marry to advocate for these families and the unfair way the government treats them. Watch their powerful new video about just how harmful DOMA can be:

LGBT

RNC Chair Flip-Flops On Marriage Amendment, Opposes LGBT Workplace Discrimination

In an appearance on Meet The Press Sunday morning, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus attempted to clarify his party’s positions on same-sex marriage and also addressed the question of employment discrimination. Host David Gregory pressured Priebus about comments he made last week that states should make their own decisions about banning same-sex marriage, saying “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate,” — remarks noticeably out of step with Mitt Romney’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Priebus completely flipped on these “inartful” comments, aligning the party’s views with the candidate’s:

PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, I agree with the Governor.

GREGORY: Did you misspeak?

PRIEBUS: Perhaps it was inartful. [...]

GREGORY: The issue is: you said, “Don’t federalize it.” The nominee of the party says, “Federalize it,” a constitutional ban. Is that what the party believes?

PRIEBUS: Of course.

GREGORY: And it should be part of the platform?

PRIEBUS: It is part of the platform. And for the record, we do agree with the marriage amendment, and we do agree with DOMA, but as we sit today, we don’t have a federal mandate — excuse me, a federal — excuse me, a constitutional amendment.

Watch it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Despite this flip against equality, Priebus did claim that gays and lesbians deserve “equal rights, in regards to say, discrimination in the workplace,” which raises new questions about where the Republican party stands on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) recently said he “hasn’t thought much” about ENDA, but Republicans like Reps. Allen West (FL), James Lankford (OK), Kenny Marchant (TX), and Sen. Mike Lee (UT) have all opposed the long-proposed bill, arguing the protections are unnecessary.

LGBT

Memo To GOP: Marriage Equality Boosts The Economy

Republicans have responded to President Obama’s public endorsement of marriage equality by passing an amendment hours later reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and including two more anti-LGBT amendments in a defense bill.

Some members of the party, however, just want to ignore the issue altogether. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who has supported using taxpayer funds to defend DOMA, dismissed the focus on marriage equality as a distraction from important concerns like jobs and the economy:

The speaker suggested the reignited debate over gay marriage is a distraction to other legislative business on Capitol Hill, especially considering the state of the economy.

“Republicans here on Capitol Hill are focused in on the economy,” he said. “The American people are still asking the question, ‘Where are the jobs?’ and our focus is going to continue to be on the economy like it has been for the last year and a half.”

But if jobs and the economy are the Speaker’s focus, he might be pleased to learn that legalizing same-sex marriage has had a strong positive impact on state and local economies, brought in money for tourism, lodging and wedding planning, and offered much-needed relief to state budgets:

MASSACHUSETTS: A 2009 study found that “marriages have had a positive economic effect on Massachusetts -– likely providing a boost of over $100 million to the state economy.” “Same-sex couples’ weddings injected significant spending into the Massachusetts economy and brought out-of-state guests to the state, whose spending also added to the economic boost,” it concluded.

IOWA: Last year, a study found that same-sex marriages brought as much as $13 million in new spending to Iowa in the year since the state Supreme Court overturned a ban.

MARYLAND: A report last month from the Maryland Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce found that the recently passed marriage equality law could boost the state’s economy by $90 million a year if it survives a November referendum.

ILLINOIS: In March, a study from the Williams Institute predicted that legalizing marriage equality would boost Illinois’ economy by between $39 and $72 million over three years, and bring in as much as $8 million in tax revenue.

NEW JERSEY: The Williams Institute also found that legalizing marriage equality in New Jersey could add $119 million to the state’s economy over three years, along with $8 million in tax revenue.

RHODE ISLAND: One state that has not legalized same-sex marriage, Rhode Island, could be losing as much as $8 million a year. Why? Because same-sex couples simply travel to Massachusetts to get married. Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages from out of state but only allows civil unions within its borders.

NATIONALLY: A CBO report found that repealing DOMA could actually improve the federal budget by just under $1 billion in each of the next ten years, but only if marriage equality was legal in all fifty states and recognized by the federal government.

-Zachary Bernstein

NEWS FLASH

House Responds To Obama’s Marriage Endorsement By Reinforcing Discrimination | The House of Representatives passed a measure reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, just hours after President Obama announced his support for marriage equality. In a vote of 245 to 171, the members “voted to stop the Justice Department from using taxpayer funds to actively oppose DOMA — the Clinton-era law defining marriage as between a man and a woman that the Obama administration stopped enforcing in February 2011.” Sixteen Democrats voted in favor of the measure, while 7 Republicans opposed it. Among its many negative consequences, DOMA has denied federal benefits to same-sex couples and their families. House Republicans, however, have defended its constitutionality in 12 separate cases.

LGBT

Republicans Intervene To Defend Discriminatory Treatment Of Gay And Lesbian Servicemembers

As news broke that Richard Grenell — the openly-gay conservative foreign policy spokesperson hired by Mitt Romney — had resigned following pressure from right-wing activists, word came down that the House Republicans have intervened to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and related laws in McLaughlin v. United States, a challenge brought by eight gay and lesbian servicemembers, veterans and their spouses who allege they face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.

That lawsuit claims that Maj. Shannon McLaughlin of the Massachusetts National Guard and her partner Casey are denied benefits that similarly situated opposite-sex couples enjoy as a result of the 1996 law, which “violates constitutional equal protection guarantees,” “the Tenth Amendment and constitutional principles of federalism.” DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples.

The House Republican leadership — in the form of the The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — agreed to defend the discriminatory treatment after Obama administration announced that it will not argue on behalf laws that prevent married same-sex couples from obtaining military benefits. Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner has more:

The move is similar to BLAG’s action in a similar case brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Cooper-Harris v. United States, in which equal veterans benefits are being sought. BLAG, which is controlled by the House Republican leadership, has intervened in several DOMA challenges to defend the 1996 law after the Obama administration stopped defending the federal definition of marriage in February 2011, when Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder concluded the law was unconstitutional.

In a statement today, SLDN executive director Aubrey Sarvis said, “Speaker Boehner’s request to defend this case in the wake of the ongoing harm done to military families by these discriminatory laws is reprehensible and callous.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office immediately condemned the action, noting, “The men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives for the country they love and do not deserve to face prejudice, especially from our nation’s elected leaders, when they return home. Speaker Boehner should grant the request of Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer for a vote of the BLAG on the expanded DOMA defense efforts regarding veterans cases and allow the Committee on House Administration and the Ethics Committee to review any new contracts or additional expenditures of taxpayer funds.”

This is the 12th case in which Boehner has intervened and it comes as the head of his party fails to stand up to the anti-gay wing of the conservative movement.

NEWS FLASH

Kerry Pens Letter In Defense Of Binational Gay Couple Threatened By DOMA | Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of one woman facing deportation to Pakistan because the federal government does not recognize her same-sex marriage to an American citizen. The Massachusetts woman “lost her student visa because she could not afford to remain in college” and now her spouse has filed a petition to sponsor her for a marriage-based green card, but the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services cannot approve the petition because it uses the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. In his letter, “Kerry asked that the couple’s petition be put on hold until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed or the litigation challenging the law is settled. The delay would prevent the petition from being denied and would allow the Pakistani woman to stay in the United States until the legal battle is resolved.”

Older

Switch to Mobile