|
''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management'' is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3, which defined the federal definition of marriage to be a union of a man and a woman, entirely excluding legally married same-sex couples. The District Court that originally heard the case ruled Section 3 unconstitutional. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, and denied appeal of ''Pedersen'' the next day. ==Legal Proceedings== Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed the case in U.S. District Court on behalf of six same-sex couples and one widower in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, making the same arguments it made in ''Gill v. Office of Personnel Management'': that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act should be found unconstitutional based on the Fifth Amendment, equal protection, and the federal government's historically consistent deference to state definitions of marriage. It prevents the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples who are legally married in their own states or other jurisdictions and restricts the federal government from granting such couples benefits it provides to different-sex married couples. On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a memo regarding two lawsuits challenging DOMA section 3, ''Pedersen v. OPM'' and ''Windsor v. United States'' stating, "After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases." However, the administration also announced it intended to continue enforcing the law until its repeal by Congress or until ruled unconstitutional in court. On April 18, 2011, leaders of the House of Representatives announced they had chosen former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the case on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG). On July 15, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.〔''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management'', (Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment ). Retrieved July 20, 2011.〕 On June 20, 2012, BLAG asked that the case be put on hold pending Supreme Court action on the First Circuit decision in ''Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services'' and ''Gill v. Office of Personnel Management'', which BLAG was appeal. The Court denied the request on July 4, 2012.〔''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management'', (Order Denying Intervenor-Defendant's Motion to Stay ). Retrieved July 5, 2012.〕 On July 31, Judge Vanessa L. Bryant found for the plaintiffs. She wrote, "()aving considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|