Challenging Federal Marriage Discrimination
July 8, 2010, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional with respect to claims brought by seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts. The next step in the case is for the federal government to decide whether it will appeal Judge Tauro's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Read more about this decision.
Represented by GLAD, the plaintiffs in Gill, all married in Massachusetts, have each been harmed by DOMA treating them as unmarried. Gill was filed on March 3, 2009, and has been called the case with the greatest potential for national impact by the National Law Journal.
GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto explains GLAD's legal challenge.
Case News & Updates More »
News
Federal Court Strikes Down DOMA Section 3
Today, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional with respect to claims brought by seven married same-sex couples and...
Blog
An Argument for Equality: Recapping DOMA Hearing Day
· 9 Comments
It was sunny and warm as we headed to the Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse on Boston’s waterfront. Eight married couples, three widowers, and as many attorneys marched into the courtroom of Federal...
Press Releases
Federal Court Strikes Down DOMA Section 3
GLAD Lawsuit Results in Federal Court Striking Down DOMA Section 3
Today, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional with respect to claims brought by seven married same-sex couples and...
