Editing Defense of Marriage Act (section)

===''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management''===
''[[Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' is a case filed by GLAD in Connecticut on behalf of same-sex couples in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, in which GLAD repeats the arguments it made in ''Gill''.

On July 31, 2012, Judge [[Vanessa Lynne Bryant]] ruled that "having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."<ref>{{cite web|last=Bolcer|first=Julie|title=Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional in Pedersen Case|url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/07/31/breaking-judge-rules-doma-unconstitutional-pedersen-case|date=31 July 2012|access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref> She held that "laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny by courts" but determined Section 3 of DOMA "fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny."<ref name=buzz>{{cite web |last=Geidner |first=Chris |title=Federal Trial Court In Connecticut Strikes Down DOMA's Marriage Definition|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-trial-court-in-connecticut-strikes-down-do|publisher=BuzzFeed Politics |date=31 July 2012 |access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref><ref name=tpm1>{{cite web|last=Geidner |first=Ryan J. |title=Bush Appointee Rules DOMA Unconstitutional |url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/bush_appointee_rules_doma_unconstitutional.php |publisher=Talking Points Memo |date=31 July 2012 |access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref> The case was appealed to the Second Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, Pedersen asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Second Circuit decides it so it can be heard together with ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]''.<ref>''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management'', [http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/pedersen-plaintiffs-cert-petition-08-21-12.pdf Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924022459/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/pedersen-plaintiffs-cert-petition-08-21-12.pdf |date=September 24, 2015 }}. Retrieved August 21, 2012.</ref> The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in ''Windsor''.