Facts

Prior to the passage of Proposition 8, a California same sex couple, plaintiffs Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, were married. They sued the United States of America and California in 2009. The claims against California were dismissed for lack of standing. Their actions were targeted at the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that all states and jurisdictions refused to recognize the validity of their marriage, thereby denying them numerous rights, benefits, and responsibilities bestowed on all opposite-sex married couples. Specifically, they alleged they were denied right to Social Security survivor benefits, decision-making authority for funeral arrangements and the disposition of a spouse's body, the presumption that both spouses are the parent of a child born during marriage, the right to bereavement leave in the event of a spouse's death, and the right to a spouse's separate property and couple's marital property upon death of an intestate spouse.

Further, they contended that DOMA violated the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, a citizen's right to travel, the Due Process and Fifth Amendment clauses, and equal protection. Also, they alleged that DOMA violated citizens' rights under the Ninth Amendment, privacy rights, and free speech rights.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense contended that the U.S. District Court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims. Also, the defense argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims and did not validly state a claim that could be granted relief.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction compelling defendants to eliminate any distinction in law that prejudices the rights of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment establishing that any such law that restricts or distinguishes plaintiffs differently from opposite gendered couples to be unconstitutional. This included the invalidation of DOMA.

Injuries

Plaintiffs claimed severe mental anguish, humiliation, loss of liberty, emotional distress, and deprivations of their pursuit of happiness, as well as the aforementioned constitutional rights.

Result

This court dismissed the suit, finding the U.S. District Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the broader constitutional question.