Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
For complete details about this case and the plaintiffs, visit http://www.glad.org/doma/
August 2, 2012 – GLAD filed a brief in response to the petitions for a writ of certiorari by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Read GLAD’s Press Release Here.
August 2, 2012—The Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund and the Attorney Generals of 15 states filed amici briefs in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG).
July 3, 2012 - The Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
June 29, 2012 - House Leadership via the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
May 31, 2012 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimous ruling upholding District Court decision finding section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional
February 25, 2011 — Update: The Department of Justice followed Wednesday’s withdrawal from two DOMA cases in the Second Circuit, including GLAD’s Pedersen v. OPM by notifying the clerk of the First Circuit that they will also “cease to defend” the two consolidated DOMA cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. HHS. Read more
October 12, 2010 — Update: The federal government filed notice it is appealing the July 8, 2010 U.S. District Court ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Read our press release on the Appeal
July 8, 2010 — Update: U.S. District Court decision holds that DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, July 8, 2010. Read the decision.
February 16, 2010 — Update: GLAD filed our Plaintiff’s Reply Memo in Support of our Motion for Summary Judgment, February 16, 2010. Read the memo.
January 29, 2010 — Update: The Government filed their opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment on January 29, 2010. Read more here.
November 17, 2009 — Update: On November 17, 2009, GLAD filed a motion in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss, and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the case. Read more here.
July 31, 2009 — Update: GLAD filed an amended complaint in the Gill suit on July 31, 2009.
July 8, 2009 — On July 8, 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed suit challenging DOMA Sec 3. Read more here.
June 31, 2009 — On May 27, 2009, as a result of GLAD’s legal challenge on behalf of Gill plaintiffs Keith and Al Toney, the U.S. State Department announced a change in policy regarding the issuance of passports to people who have changed their name after marrying someone of the same sex, so that they may now receive a passport in their new name. Keith applied for his new passport on June 22. Read more here..
On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed the first concerted, multi-plaintiff legal challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. targets the denial of certain federal rights and protections to married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. GLAD lawsuits brought marriage equality to Massachusetts (2004) and Connecticut (2008), the only states where same-sex couples can currently legally marry. This suit, filed today in federal District Court in Boston, addresses the use of DOMA Section 3 to deny spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and in the issuance of passports.
Passed in 1996, DOMA Section 3, now codified at 1 U.S.C. section 7, limits the marriages the federal government will respect to those between a man and a woman. Section 2 of DOMA, not at issue in this lawsuit, allows states to establish public policies about what marriages they will and will not respect.
GLAD argues that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income tax, Social Security, federal employees and retirees, and in the issuance of passports. GLAD also contends that DOMA Section 3 is an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into marriage law, always considered the province of the states.
The plaintiffs are eight married couples and three widowers, each of whom is currently eligible for a federal program. Each has applied for a benefit under that program and was denied because of DOMA Section 3.
For complete details about this case and the plaintiffs, visit http://www.glad.org/doma/
Mary Ritchie & Kathy Bush
Like many moms, Mary and Kathy spend their evenings cooking dinner and checking homework for their two boys while navigating a maze of musical instruments, Legos and basketballs…and soccer balls and baseballs. By day Mary and Kathy are both engaged members of their community in Framingham. Mary is a State Police Detective Lieutenant assigned to the General Headquarters in the Division of Standards and Training. Kathy is co-president of their sons’ middle school PTO and is deeply involved in their education, volunteering in the school and coordinating fundraising events to help their school raise money.
Mary and Kathy have been together for nearly 23 years. They married in 2004 at their home in Framingham, surrounded by friends, neighbors, and family, including their sons Ryan, now 13, and William, who is now 11.
Kathy, originally from Framingham, stopped working after Ryan was born so she could stay home with the boys full-time. Mary is a Boston native and has been a member with the Massachusetts State Police 24 years. As a member of the State Police force, she risks her safety every day to protect her community.
But if Mary were killed in the line of duty, the federal government would deny Kathy the benefits the government pays to officers’ surviving spouses. Kathy also wouldn’t be eligible for the education benefit for surviving spouses—which she would need to re-enter the workplace.
“Every time a member of law enforcement dies in the line of duty, we’re reminded of how vulnerable our family is,” says Mary. “The federal government provides a safety net for the families of public safety officers who die, including a death benefit and an education benefit for surviving spouses. But because the federal government discriminates against our marriage, if something happened to me, Kathy would get nothing.”
And unlike other married couples, Mary and Kathy cannot file their federal taxes jointly. Since 2004 they have paid close to $30,000 more in taxes because they can’t file their federal taxes as a married couple—even though they are legally married. This means they have less money for household expenses, and to put away for their boys’ college funds and retirement.
“We have the same struggles and the same commitment as other families. Mary works, I stay home, we have two boys, a dog, and a cat, fish tanks, and a guinea pig,” says Kathy. “We work hard, pay taxes, volunteer, and do our part for our community. But the federal government still tells us we’re less of a family than other families in our neighborhood—families Mary works to protect.”
Marlin Nabors & Jonathan Knight
Jonathan and Marlin first met at a coffee shop in Indianapolis in 2004. From the beginning, they balanced each other out. Marlin is from Flint, Michigan, and worked at a college in the city; Jonathan is from rural Indiana and worked at an organic dairy farm. Marlin was fascinated by Jonathan’s quiet intellect; Jonathan thought Marlin was sophisticated and outgoing.
Six months later, a college in Boston offered Marlin a job in student housing. He and Jonathan decided to take the plunge, and moved to Boston in 2005. Jonathan found a job in financial administration at Harvard. They married in 2006, and bought their first home in Hyde Park in 2008.
But the federal government penalizes them for their marriage by making them file separate taxes and pay more than other couples. Since they married in 2006, they have paid thousands of dollars more in taxes than if they had been able to file jointly.
“For us, as a married couple just starting out, it’s a lot of money,” says Jonathan. “We just bought our first home and are working to fix it up. I do a lot of the work myself, and my dad even came from Ohio to help me install new appliances. But every penny counts.”
They have a solid foundation for their future together: the support of their families, friends, and community; good jobs; and a home. Marlin is now associate dean of students at Southern New Hampshire University. Jonathan recently received his B.A. in Extension Studies from Harvard University.
“We want to plan for a future in which we aren’t discriminated against just for being a married couple,” says Marlin. “We think our country can do better than having a system of first- and second-class marriages.”
As they grow in their careers Jonathan and Marlin know that their finances will change. As a couple whose marriage is treated equally by the federal government, they may pay more in taxes. It’s a price they’re willing to pay—for equality and for the safety net the federal government provides for spouses.
Martin (Al) Koski & Jim Fitzgerald
Al Koski and Jim Fitzgerald met in Boston in 1975. For more than 37 years, they have seen each other through thick and thin—through career changes, long-distance moves, health complications, and caring for and losing parents.
A native of Brockton, Al worked as a Social Security claims representative in Dorchester when he and Jim met. Then in 1979 Jim, who is originally from South Boston, moved with Al to Florida, where Al worked as a travel agent. Al’s father lived with them for 13 of their 16 years in Florida. They were at his side throughout his long battle with cancer, and were with him when he died in their home in 1994.
Al and Jim returned to Massachusetts—and Al back to his job with Social Security—the year after Al’s dad passed away. Ten years later, when Al retired in 2005, he and Jim moved to Cape Cod to enjoy a slower pace of life. Now 70, Al plays bridge on weekdays with friends near his home in Bourne. Jim, 61, has a longer way to go before retirement—he works at a treatment facility helping people with addictions turn their lives around. They also take time on a near-daily basis to visit with Jim’s 89-year-old mother, who moved to a nursing home close by in 2010.
Al completed his career as a federal employee so he and Jim would have a more secure retirement. But despite their planning, Al’s decades of service, and their legal marriage in Massachusetts in 2007, the federal government denies them that security.
“The bottom line for us is that because the government discriminates against our legal marriage, we don’t have access to the same protections as other married couples,” says Jim. “That has a real impact on our lives, especially as we get older.”
Because the federal government won’t let Jim on Al’s pension, it denies him the ability to be a survivor on Al’s annuity. It also denies him the lifetime health insurance coverage that federal employees’ spouses get automatically. Jim has chronic, severe asthma, so they end up spending hundreds of dollars each month on his insurance premium, medical co-pays, and medications. From 2007, the year Al and Jim married, through 2011, they have paid over $12, 512 more in health care costs than they would have if Jim was covered under Al’s plan.
“We have really simple goals for retirement: to be healthy and as comfortable as we can be,” says Al. “But there are scary possibilities. What really keeps me up at night is the thought that if I pass away first, Jim won’t be able to keep our home without access to my pension.”
Dorene & Mary Bowe-Shulman
Having cancer twice in her early twenties changed Dorene’s outlook on what was really important in life. When she met Mary at a book group in 1996, she realized she had found someone who shared her perspective. They bonded over Irish tea and their old, stubborn alpha cats, and have been together since.
Mary, an attorney at the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, and Dorene, a stay-at-home mom and part-time acupuncturist, legally married in Massachusetts in 2004. They are raising two girls in their home in Acton —Emma Jae, who is 13 and an avid reader who loves playing soccer, and Olivia, who at 10 has taken on the role of family clown.
As a mom and cancer survivor whose own mother died of cancer at a young age, Dorene knows that good health insurance plays a critical role in her health and the security of her family. So when she and Mary were able to legally marry, they rushed to put Dorene on Mary’s family health plan at work rather than pay for an expensive individual policy for Dorene. They were relieved—until Mary got her first paycheck after adding Dorene to her family plan.
“It was as if I had added a total stranger to my insurance, not my spouse,” says Mary. “I already had a family insurance plan through work, but the federal government had withdrawn taxes for Dorene’s coverage. My married colleagues just aren’t penalized in the same way.”
Mary’s family health plan costs her employer the same whether Dorene is added or not. They also can’t file federal taxes as a married couple. This has cost them thousands of dollars over the course of their marriage; in 2006, for instance, the family paid $3,332 more in taxes than they would have if the federal government did not discriminate against their marriage. This is money they could be saving for their girls’ education.
There are other ways in which federal discrimination hurts their family.
“We do everything we can to protect our children,” says Dorene. “But by discriminating against us the federal government tells our girls that we’re not worthy of the same rights as everyone else. They are a little young to understand that now, but we know our girls will see this discrimination soon enough.”
Bette Jo Green & Jo Ann Whitehead
Bette Jo and Jo Ann became friends as college students in 1960. They parted ways after graduation, but nearly 20 years later they both found themselves living in Massachusetts. They reconnected, and fell in love.
They have been committed to each other for 31 years, building a life together in the Boston neighborhood of Jamaica Plain where they are well-known as the “hot dog ladies” for their role in weekly community barbecues during the summer. Bette Jo, 70, retired in 2008 after a 35-year career as a labor and delivery nurse and enjoys singing in a community chorus. Jo Ann, 70, still works part-time as a garden educator. Together, they spend time working in their home garden, canning, and freezing their favorite recipes.
They legally married in their backyard garden—their pride and joy—in 2004, with friends and neighbors.
They have found joy in the good times and have loved and supported each other through the hard times—through losing parents, losing friends, and both their battles with cancer. Now both cancer-free, they still worry about each other’s health as they age. They worry about their financial future. But unlike other married people their age, their worries are multiplied by federal discrimination. They lose money each year because they are denied the spousal Social Security benefit that would increase Jo Ann’s monthly Social Security payment. And they worry about each other as surviving spouses.
“My mother lived to be 95, and we recently celebrated my aunt’s 100th birthday. Bette Jo and I joke about the longevity of my family, but there is a real possibility that I could outlive her,” says Jo Ann. “Under DOMA, the federal government will deny me Bette Jo’s Social Security survivor benefit. I will not only lose the love of my life, I will lose more than $12,864 each year—a major part of my retirement income.”
“We have both worked hard at our jobs—jobs we have loved, but they never were going to make us wealthy,” says Bette Jo. “We have paid into Social Security all our lives, but now we are not fully protected by the system the way other married couples are.”
Randy was 51 when he lost the love of his life, his husband Rob, after his long fight with colon cancer. When Rob died in 2007, he and Randy had been together for 30 years. Randy had spent more of his life with Rob than without him. Rob’s grandchildren consider Randy their Grandpa.
Randy and Rob married in their hometown of Harwich Port on Cape Cod in 2004, after they had been together for 27 years. Their pickup truck broke down the morning they planned to apply for their marriage license at their town hall, so they walked the five miles to the town center to keep their appointment. Later, neighbors said they would have been happy to drive them—Randy and Rob had been so excited that morning they hadn’t even thought to ask.
They were best friends, and Randy says that’s what got them through the hard times—being downsized from jobs, opening a store together and weathering the slow winters at their gift shop in Harwich Port. That bond is also what guided them through Rob’s five-year battle with colon cancer.
The night before Rob died in 2007, he and Randy stayed up all night talking—about their life together, how much they loved each other, and what Rob wanted for Randy in the future.
“He never wanted to hold me back at anything. He wanted me to be happy and secure, even if it was a future without him,” says Randy. “We didn’t know then that the federal government would do so much harm that it would deny me the security that it gives to other married couples.”
Since Rob’s death, Randy has struggled to pay bills at home and at the gift shop. The difficult economy and reduced tourism have cut into sales at the store. The federal government adds to his worries by refusing to treat Randy as a spouse—even for the small but critical death benefit that would have helped him pay for Rob’s funeral expenses. And when Randy turns 60, the government will also deny him the survivor benefit other spouses receive.
“Rob and I paid into the system like everyone else,” says Randy. “But I’ll lose thousands of dollars every year—money that could make the difference in keeping our home and business.”
Herbert Burtis and John Ferris met in college, in 1948. Herb was 18, John was 22. They legally married in Massachusetts in 2004, after what they called their “55-year engagement.” When John died in August 2008, they had been together for 60 years.
Now 82, Herb is learning how to live a life without John. He says it’s the hardest thing he’s ever had to do—harder than living apart from John for 21 years when they had jobs in different states; harder than watching John’s health deteriorate from Parkinson’s disease for 16 years; harder, even, than caring for him in their home during the final years of John’s life.
But the federal government has pulled away the Social Security safety net John paid into all the years he was working, and that Herb still pays into through his adjunct work as a voice teacher at Smith College.
“Just as I struggled to cope with John’s loss, I never thought I would have to fight the federal government for the legal and financial protections that I need, and that other surviving spouses can count on,” says Herb.
Herb and John met in college in Michigan, where John returned after being stationed at Ft. Riley, Kansas, at the end of World War II. Studying with the same organ teacher, they connected through their love of music. After ten years together in Michigan and New York City, their music careers took them to different states. John was appointed University Organist and Choirmaster at Harvard, where he created the first mixed choir of women and men in the history of Harvard’s Memorial Church—to that point only men had sung in the church. Herb took a job as the choirmaster and organist at a church in Red Bank, New Jersey and had an international career as a concert artist. In 1961 Herb and John bought and restored a 1780 farmhouse in Sandisfield, in western Massachusetts, making it easier to spend time together each week, on holidays and school vacations.
In 1979 Herb moved to Arlington, Mass., to be with John permanently where he taught voice at Harvard for ten years. He was also Adjunct Professor of Voice at Smith College for two years.
Before he retired from Harvard in 1990, John noticed that he was having trouble playing music—his hands no longer worked as well as they always had. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 1992, and for the next 16 years his health deteriorated. In 2005, he spent six months in a nursing home after a hospital misdiagnosis. In the spring of 2006 Herb brought John home to care for him, but by then he had to rely on a walker and assistance to get around. Eventually, he needed a wheelchair and 24-hour care.
Herb, who still lives in their Sandisfield home, is now fighting the federal government for the Social Security protections that other widowed spouses can rightly count on in their senior years.
“The extra $700 every month from John’s Social Security would cover my gap health insurance—what I get above and beyond Medicare,” says Herb. “My medications alone are $700 each month. It would make a big difference.”
Dean met U.S. Representative Gerry E. Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, through mutual friends in the early 1980s. They crossed paths in their Washington, DC neighborhood over the next 10 years, and began dating in January 1991. Less than nine months later Dean accepted when Gerry proposed a lifetime commitment and they exchanged rings.
Over the next five years Dean and Gerry as a couple attended congressional, public and political events in Washington and around the country. Dean wore the congressional spousal pin and in 1995 was given a congressional photo identification card as Gerry’s spouse.
Gerry decided not to run for re-election in 1996, and retired from public service after 24 years in Congress. He and Dean moved to Massachusetts with their new dog, Bonnie, and built a quiet life together with family and friends. They legally married in May 2004, one week after Massachusetts ended marriage discrimination.
On October 3, 2006 Gerry took Bonnie out for her morning walk. He collapsed from a blood clot in his lung and was rushed to the hospital. His health improved at first, but 10 days later his condition suddenly got worse, and he died in the early morning hours of October 14, 2006.
“Gerry and I spent 16 wonderful years together and I miss him,” says Dean. “I remember when he spoke on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives during the debate about DOMA as I watched from the visitor’s gallery in July 1996. Back then, we didn’t know that we would ever be able to legally marry. Now that Gerry is gone, I’m always reminded that DOMA denies fair and equal treatment.”
Dean works as a financial advisor and continues to live in Boston. Since Gerry’s death Dean has sought to be treated the same as other surviving spouses of retired federal employees.
“Gerry was a public servant for 27 years, worked hard for our country, and paid as much into the system as anyone else,” he says. “But after he died, I was treated differently than other surviving spouses. Every federal employee counts on their surviving spouses having basic protections, but the federal government denies me those protections because of DOMA.”
Nancy Gill & Marcelle Letourneau
Nancy and Marcelle grew up in the same Brockton neighborhood, within two blocks of each other. They were best friends before they fell in love, and say that friendship is still at the core of their marriage.
Now living in Bridgewater, they have been together as a couple for over 32 years. Nancy has been a postal worker—the lady behind the counter—for 25 years. Marcelle does administrative work at the local Visiting Nurse Association office. They have two kids—their daughter, now in college, was born after what Nancy and Marcelle call their “16-year honeymoon,” and their son, who is 13. The whole family went on their second honeymoon after Nancy and Marcelle legally married in Massachusetts in 2004.
“After 24 years together, we were so happy to get married,” says Nancy. “But we were shocked when the government refused when I applied for benefits for Marcelle. Because the federal government discriminates against our marriage, I can’t add Marcelle to the family health plan I already pay for through my job. We end up paying for the same thing twice—my family plan and separate insurance for Marcelle through her job.”
Money is always a concern. Like most parents, Nancy and Marcelle have made their choices based on what is best for their family, not on how much money they could make. They lost money selling a house in a neighborhood they thought wasn’t good for their kids. They arrange their work schedules based on what their children need, even though it means Nancy won’t make as much money, and had to work the night shift for many years.
But the federal government still penalizes their family by denying them legal protections and safety nets that are automatically there for other families. In addition to the money they lose paying for extra health insurance, Marcelle won’t receive the federal health benefit given to surviving spouses if something should happen to Nancy. And Nancy can’t bequeath her pension benefits to Marcelle like other spouses can.
They also worry about how this discrimination will affect their children.
“We have always tried to teach our kids to live their lives honestly, with love and respect,” says Marcelle. “By disrespecting our family, the federal government tells our kids that our family isn’t equal. That’s not right.”
Keith & Al Toney
Note: Keith and Al Toney are no longer active plaintiffs in this lawsuit, as their claim has been resolved. On May 27, 2009, the State Department modified its policy for name-changes on passports to include individuals who have changed their name after marrying someone of the same sex. Keith was able to successfully apply for a new passport in his married name on June 22, 2009.
The son of a teacher and a Massachusetts State Police Sergeant, Al joined the police force in his native Worcester at the age of 20. He became the first openly gay officer in the Worcester Police Department. Nearly 10 years later, in 1995, Al retired from the force after being shot in the line of duty. He was injured and needed major surgery, but he survived. But his boyfriend and another friend who was with him at the time died from their injuries.
Years later, in 1999, Al got a second chance when he met Keith. Since then, Keith has not only been committed to Al, but also to Al’s daughter Kayla (now 21), whom they have raised together in their home in Jefferson since she was 12. The couple are active members of their community who have opened their home to foster children for both long-term and respite care.
When Al, 42, and Keith, 37, legally married in Massachusetts in 2004, Keith changed his name so everyone in their family would share the same last name. He had no trouble updating his Massachusetts driver’s license. But when he applied to change his name on his passport—as many married people do—the federal government said no.
“Security is the most important thing for our family, and in a post-9/11 world it’s more important than ever to have identity documents in order so our family is safe and secure,” says Keith. “But federal discrimination compromised our safety. When we would go through airports my identity documents didn’t match. It made us all nervous.”
On May 27, 2009, the State Department modified its policy for name-changes on passports to include individuals who have changed their name after marrying someone of the same sex. Keith was able to successfully apply for a new passport in his married name on June 22, 2009. While this was a tremendous victory, Al and Keith remain aware of the federal government’s continued discrimination against their marriage and the marriages of other same-sex couples.
Al and Keith have built and now run a consulting business to educate people about inclusion and diversity, and often share their own experiences with discrimination. “As an African-American man who works to educate others about discrimination, it is especially important to me that the government treats our family as equal before the law,” says Al. “What we tell people in our business—and what we believe—is that there are no first- and second-class citizens in this country. Everyone is equal before the law. But in denying us the legal protections it gives other married people, the federal government says our family isn’t equal.”
Melba Abreu & Beatrice Hernandez
Beatrice’s parents left Cuba for the United States before she was born, leaving behind everything to ensure a future of freedom and opportunity for their children. Melba left Cuba in 1979, in search of freedom and prosperity for herself and her future family.
Fairness, equality, and family are at the heart of their American dream—a dream shaped by their experiences as Cuban-Americans. The opportunity to always be able to provide for one another is central to that dream; yet as citizens they do not understand why the federal government discriminates against their marriage.
Melba and Beatrice met in Miami in 1987, while Melba was working as a cashier and Beatrice as a waitress. Soon after, they moved to New York where Beatrice was to attend college; and into their first apartment together in Brooklyn. Their first day in their new home, they sat on the hardwood floor of their small New York apartment and shared a bottle of wine while unpacking a box of new dishes. That simple act marked the beginning of their commitment to each other, and they view that day as the beginning of their marriage.
“Our commitment was our bond. We knew that together we would bear witness to each other’s lives,” says Beatrice. “We legally married seventeen years later, on May 20, 2004. But despite our legal marriage, the federal government continues to deny us the protections that federal law provides to other married couples towards their well-being, security, and prosperity.”
Now living in the Boston neighborhood of Chestnut Hill, Melba is CFO of a non-profit that creates economic and educational opportunities that help people in need reach their own dreams. Beatrice is a web professional and writer working on two books. New York Yankees fans in a Red Sox town, they share a love of baseball, a commitment to good food, and a passion for philanthropy. They dream of the day they can build a business together.
But because of the federal government’s discrimination and its refusal to allow them to file their income taxes jointly, they have paid from 2004 through 2008 an extra $25,359 in taxes – money that would have brought them closer to their dreams.
“We are citizens of this country and we should be treated equally,” says Melba. “But the fact that we are legally married is not enough; that we contribute and pay taxes is not enough; that we are a family is not enough. We are part of the fabric of this nation and we just want to be treated equally.”
GLAD Files Suit Challenging DOMA Section 3March 03, 2009
GLAD has filed the first concerted, multi-plaintiff legal challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. targets the denial of certain federal rights and protections to married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. This suit, filed today in federal District Court in Boston, addresses the use of DOMA Section 3 to deny spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits,...