DOMA Subverted?

Brad Levenson, federal public defender, got a neutered marriage license in California with Tony Sears during the five month window between the court-ordered neutering of marriage licenses and the passing of the California Marriage Amendment. They sued because Levenson’s employer, the federal government, would not extend benefits to Sears. Carol J. Williams reports in this LATimes.com blog entry that there has been a decision in the favor of the plaintiffs.

Here's the first line:

A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

Really? Because they are gay men? You mean if two straight men were similarly situated, the federal government would have given them the spousal benefits?

Or is the reality that the federal government does not recognize this as marriage because there is no bride?

[Much more after the jump.]

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.

So, California law trumps federal law?

The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act.

See the blog entry to see why Williams writes that – how it all works out. The claim is that DOMA still applies.

Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

I'm interested in the particulars of this case. Is the decision based on the fact that they had a state marriage license that the state Supreme Court declared valid? Or is it that they are "partners"? Because if it is the former, then doesn't that mean state law trumps federal law? If it is the latter, then how is that determined, and what legally and morally denies platonic roommates, siblings, etc. similar compensation?

I believe government employers (or those accepting taxpayer funding) should be able to set objective criteria for inclusion in their benefit packages as long as that objective criteria does not illegally discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. As such, I do believe the federal government should be able to draw the line at federally-recognized marriage. However, I'm open to the argument that taxpayers are better off having criteria that is more inclusive than that.

Will this case go on to SCOTUS?