In a story reported by The American Independent, a Federal Court judge has found that a man who married a transgendered woman has a legally recognizable marriage under Minnesota’s defense of marriage laws.
The judge held that because one of the parties is male and the other legally transitioned to a female, the couple qualifies as legally married under Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). For a copy of the opinion, click here.
As stated in the opinion:
The Court enters judgment for Plaintiff Christine Alisen Radtke. The Fund
breached the terms of the Plan when it terminated Plaintiff’s enrollment based on
its erroneous and unreasonable interpretation of Minnesota law. The State of
Minnesota law recognizes the Radtkes’ marriage as a marriage between a man
and a woman because Minnesota law recognizes Plaintiff’s sex as female. Ms.
Radtke is Mr. Radtke’s legal spouse under Minnesota law and an eligible
dependent under the Plan.
Discussing it’s decision, the court cited the following language contained in a benefits termination letter from the husband’s employer in which it supports its decision and interpretation of DOMA:
The Fund has learned, for the first time, that
Christine underwent a male to female sex reassignment surgery prior to your
marriage.” (Snyder Decl., Ex. 23.) It explains:
The Fund currently uses the Minnesota statutory definition of
marriage as one of the tests for eligibility under the Fund.
Minnesota Statute section 517.01 states that “Lawful marriage may
be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex”. Minnesota
Statute section 517.03 Subd. 1(4) states that “a marriage between
persons of the same sex” is prohibited.
. . .In reviewing the terms of the Fund, it is the judgment of the Claims
Administrator that despite the amendment of Christine’s birth
certificate and your subsequent marriage, the basis for your
marriage is not one that is currently recognized under any express
provisions of Minnesota Law. Accordingly, Christine is not an
eligible dependent under the Fund.
. . .
The court did not find the plan’s reasoning in its termination letter persuasive and overturned the plan’s decision. The Federal District Court Judge, Micheal J. Davis, found the plan’s decision to be “unreasonable and wrong.”
See Court rules Minn. DOMA doesn’t apply to some transgender marriages, American Independent, April 3, 2012.
-This post was written by Joseph M. Flanders, and Apple Valley MN lawyer.
2 Comments