Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

And Veterans Benefits

Jim Burroway

August 30th, 2013

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage act, it didn’t address any other sections of the law which also limit the definition of marriage, like Title 38, the portion of the U.S. code covering veterans’ benefits. That code barred the VA from recognizing marriages for couples residing in states where that marriage is illegal. It looks like that restriction is history as well:

U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall, a Carter appointee, grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs by determining the U.S. government lacks any rational basis in withholding these benefits. Marshall finds current law doesn’t advance gender equity or military purposes.

“Title 38 is not rationally related to the military’s commitment to caring for and providing for veterans benefits,” Marshall writes. “[T]he court permanently enjoins Defendants from relying on [Title 38] or Section 3 of [DOMA] to deny recognition of Plantiffs’ marriage recognized by the State of California.”

It’s not immediately clear Thursday night whether the ruling means the U.S. government is enjoined from blocking benefits for all gay married veterans or only the plaintiffs who filed suit in the case. However, the court declared the law unconstitutional, not just as applied to the plaintiffs.



August 30th, 2013 | LINK

Title 38 is not part of DOMA. It is a separate law. And it had language which restricted benefits regardless of whether the couple lived in state that recognized same sex marriages or not.

August 31st, 2013 | LINK

Rob- was that a “book review” you just posted? That’s exactly what Jim wrote in the article. Lol.

August 31st, 2013 | LINK


Jim says “That code barred the VA from recognizing marriages for couples residing in states where that marriage is illegal.” This is slightly wrong. Title 38 barred the VA from granting benefits regardless of where the married same-sex couple lived.

August 31st, 2013 | LINK

Jim’s wording doesn’t make sense anyway, since the plaintiffs reside in a state that now recognizes their marriage (even if it didn’t before).

August 31st, 2013 | LINK

“All men are endowed with certain inalienable rights…” How much longer does anyone think it will take to drag all of society into the 18th century?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.