Back in September, I blogged about the conflict that exists with the rights of married same gender spouses to file a joint bankruptcy petition, and the conflict posted by what I have no problem calling the politically and legislatively ill-conceived Defense of Marriage Act. I felt then that it was – to get a bit personal here - another betrayal by the Clinton Administration (the first being “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”).
And just a few weeks ago, I met with a debtor contemplating bankruptcy who wanted to file a joint bankruptcy petition with his same-sex spouse. I advised him that he had two choices: one, is that he could focus on getting the relief from the debt that he had and work towards getting his discharge and getting on with his life. That meant separate petitions, separate cases, separate docket numbers.
Or the other: he and his husband could hunker down, prepare for a long (and not an altogether inexpensive) legal battle that may – or may not – end up at the U.S. Supreme Court – and he could revel in proving a point (although I can think of few bankruptcy debtors who by the time they arrive at the steps of any US Bankruptcy Court actually feel that they need to prove a point… other than the one that is rather obvious). Ultimately, same sex married couples have not enjoyed the benefit of filing a joint bankruptcy petition because the Defense of Marriage Act precluded such joint filings by same sex spouses.
But today, I’m feeling good.
Today, US District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, sitting in the District of Massachusetts ruled in two separate cases that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
I’m not going to count chickens before the eggs hatch. I expect appeals, I expect extreme right wing conservatives to thump their chest a bit. I expect someone, somewhere to stand in a pulpit and shriek that this decision is a sign that the end of days is nigh. But I do dare say, to borrow from an old dear song “…this old world is a new world. And a bold world.”
It may be a new dawn and a new day for same sex married debtors who hope to get the benefits and protections found only in Title 11 of the United States Code (i.e., the Bankruptcy Code). At least I think so. So until I am told otherwise, when I speak to same-sex married debtors I’m going to be singing a very different – and an ultimately happy tune.
Read the decisions here. I have. And I feel good.
Nancy Gilly & Marcelle Letourneau, et al. v. Office of Personnel Managment, et al.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Related posts:
- The Elephant in the Room: Married Same-Sex Debtors
- High Income Debtor Gets Chapter 7 Relief
- Bad Decisions and Hard Lessons: What happens when you should know better?
- “Congress Must Surely Be Pleased”
- When the Ex Files Bankruptcy
Tags: Commentary - Legal, Consumer Rights, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Joint Debtors
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by McLeod Law Offices. McLeod Law Offices said: Remember that elephant I wrote about last fall? He might actually be starting to leave the room. So today…I'm… http://fb.me/sFeCWBl3 [...]