News Archives

Search our archives. Simply choose a state or topic from the pull down menus below.




Join Our Mailing List

We will send you updates about the changes GLAD is winning in the law and invitations to upcoming GLAD events.

Sign Me Up


For more information on a case,
contact Amanda Johnston at 617-426-1350, or contact by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

July 5, 2012

Motion to Stop Proceedings in DOMA Case Denied

On July 4, Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, denied the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s (BLAG) motion to stay the proceedings in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) now pending in federal court in the District of Connecticut. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which is representing the plaintiffs, strongly opposed the motion for a stay.

In denying BLAG’s motion that the pending appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Windsor case made her ruling unnecessary, Judge Bryant cited potential harm to the Pedersen plaintiffs if the proceedings were halted. “The Court finds that the harm which would befall the Plaintiffs if a stay were to be entered is significant,” she wrote. “Entering a stay in this matter would essentially deny the Plaintiffs the right to advocate for their own interests, asking them instead to ‘stand aside while a litigant in another [case] settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both [parties].’”

Pedersen v. OPM involves six married couples and a widower, from Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, who have all been denied federal benefits only because of DOMA.  Once Judge Bryant rules, an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would likely follow. Both BLAG and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are seeking Supreme Court review of the Massachusetts & Gill cases from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and DOJ has also sought review before judgment in Golinski, currently pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Learn more about Pedersen v. OPM and the plaintiffs involved: