Jump To • Introduction • Questions Presented For Review • List Of All Parties • Table Of Contents • Table Of Cited Authorities • Jurisdiction • Statement Of The Case • Reasons For Granting The Petition • Appendix A. Opinion of the United States Tax Court, filed July 14, 2000 • Appendix B. Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed April 8, 2001 • Appendix C. House of Representatives Congressional Record, July 12, 1996 • Appendix D. United States Senate Congressional Record, September 10, 1996 • Appendix E. Letter from University of Chicago Hospitals Human Resources Department, November 13, 2000

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Homosexuals comprise approximately 10% of the population of the United States of America, yet they and their families have not been given recognition by Congress when formulating national legislation, especially tax legislation. Although the purpose of tax legislation is ostensibly to fund the federal government, it is also used to encourage modes of behavior and economic actions. Exclusion implies that second-class citizenship for homosexuals is acceptable; it is not.

This case presents a claim that exclusion violates three principles of the United States Constitution - equal protection, separation of church and state, and cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, such exclusion is both a civil rights and a human rights violation that this Court is asked to rectify.

The United States Tax Court issued a decision that attempted to address the issues presented, to justify the way the laws treat homosexuals, but it failed to justify the discrimination in the eyes of the petitioner. The Court of Appeals issued a vague decision, an avoidance of the issues. The Court of Appeals then applied rule 42(b) and (c) to suppress publication of the case and its decision. An en banc request to review and clarify the decision was tabled. This Court is now asked to review those decisions based on the following:

Equal protection. Are homosexual Americans denied equal protection under the tax laws and other statutes of the United States of America? Homosexuals do form families. These families have a right to recognition and protection under the laws of the United States of America. Without recognition of their families, homosexuals are required to pursue formal methods for ensuring their families are provided for. These are steps heterosexual couples are granted through a single term - marriage. A similar status should be available to homosexuals.

Separation of church and state. Does failure to recognize homosexual partners violate the constitutional principles of separation of church and state? There is no rational basis for discriminating against homosexuals. Many churches do so, but that is their right under the separation of church and state. However, the state does not have such a right to discriminate without providing a rational basis for such action.

Cruel and unusual punishment. Does failure to recognize homosexual partners as a family unit constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Many of the laws passed by the federal government are to aid in stability of the family unit, yet no such family unit is defined for homosexuals. Homosexuals are considered permanently single in the eyes of the law. This is cruel because it ignores the reality of homosexual lives, and it is unusual because it singles out 10% of the population.

Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Is the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional? This act, although passed in 1996, represents the attitudes of Congress for many years. It is just a bold step where Congress decided it could codify its discriminatory attitudes. This act should be reviewed within the framework of this case. A ruling on its constitutionality is necessary to minimize the discriminatory undercurrents of its passage. This document should be construed liberally under the teachings of Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972).