Most would agree that marriage equality is an important civil rights issue.
This article explores the complex legal history behind the Defense of Marriage Act, from its passage in 1996 to its overturning by the Supreme Court in 2013.
You'll learn about DOMA's purpose and effects, key court challenges, and its ultimate replacement by new legislation that protects same-sex marriage rights.The story illustrates how laws evolve in response to societal changes over time.
Introduction to the Defense of Marriage Act
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a controversial law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This law had significant implications for same-sex couples, restricting access to federal benefits and protections.
The Purpose of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act
DOMA was enacted with the stated purpose of defending traditional marriage. Supporters wanted to establish a federal definition of marriage to ensure that same-sex marriages would not be recognized. The law also aimed to protect states' rights to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The Political Climate of the 1996 United States Congress
DOMA passed with strong bipartisan support in the Republican-controlled Congress. Although a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, signed the bill into law, it aligned with the socially conservative political climate of the time. There was little awareness of LGBTQ issues, and most politicians backed the law to appeal to conservative voters.
Defining Marriage: The Core of DOMA
A key component of DOMA was to establish a federal definition of marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." This denied same-sex couples access to over 1,000 federal laws and programs related to marriage. DOMA also allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.
Early Reactions and Legal Responses to DOMA
Initial reaction to DOMA from the LGBTQ community and allies was very negative. Lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of the law. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. This was a major victory in the fight for marriage equality. Additional litigation ultimately led to the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
What is the Defense of Marriage Act simplified?
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a federal law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The main provisions of DOMA were:
-
It defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the union between one man and one woman. This meant that same-sex couples would not be recognized as "married" under federal laws, even if their marriage was legally recognized by their state.
-
It stated that no U.S. state or political subdivision was required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. This allowed each state to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
In essence, DOMA aimed to prevent legal same-sex marriages performed at the state level from receiving federal protections, benefits, and responsibilities that come with marriage. It also left it up to each state to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
DOMA was passed at a time when no states allowed or recognized same-sex marriage. It was introduced with bipartisan support but was motivated in large part by socially conservative efforts to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S.
In 2013, Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case United States v. Windsor. This meant the federal government had to provide benefits to legally married same-sex couples. However, Section 2 of DOMA remained in effect.
What was the purpose of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act?
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The stated purpose of DOMA was to define marriage for federal purposes as the union between one man and one woman, and to allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.
Specifically, Section 2 of DOMA stated that no state shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state. This section gave states the right to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Section 3 of DOMA defined the terms "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law, restricting them to opposite-sex couples. As a result, same-sex couples were excluded from federal benefits and protections available to opposite-sex married couples, such as social security survivor benefits, immigration rights, joint tax filing, and insurance benefits.
The passage of DOMA reflected socially conservative views at the time regarding same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights in America. Supporters argued it would protect traditional marriage and prevent the need to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. However, it was controversial from the start and critics argued it violated principles of federalism and equal protection.
In 2013, Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor. And in 2015, the fundamental right to marry was extended to same-sex couples nationwide under Obergefell v. Hodges. However, Section 2 remains in effect.
Is the Defense of Marriage Act still law?
No, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is no longer in effect. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Section 3 had defined marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman. The Windsor decision meant the federal government had to recognize same-sex marriages that were legal under state law.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the 14th Amendment requires all U.S. state laws to recognize same-sex marriages. This left Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable.
So in summary:
- Section 3 of DOMA was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 as unconstitutional.
- Section 2 of DOMA is no longer valid or enforceable after the 2015 Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act is effectively null and void. Same-sex couples have had the fundamental right to marry nationwide since 2015.
sbb-itb-e93bf99
What did the Supreme Court rule against the Defense of Marriage Act?
In the landmark United States v. Windsor case, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling on June 26, 2013 declaring Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Section 3 had defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman for federal purposes.
The Court ruled that Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under federal law for same-sex married couples. By denying federal recognition and benefits to legally married same-sex couples, Section 3 of DOMA imposed a disadvantage, stigma, and inequality that violated due process rights.
In the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court established that the federal government cannot deny equal protection to a class of persons that states have sought to protect. Since New York recognized same-sex marriages as valid, the federal government could not discriminate against those unions.
The ruling struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to provide benefits to legally married same-sex couples. However, Section 2, which says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, was not challenged in this case.
Judicial Challenges and the Defense of Marriage Act
The Road to United States v. Windsor (2013)
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) faced several legal challenges after it was signed into law in 1996. Key cases that paved the way for United States v. Windsor include:
-
In 2009, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. This ruling was appealed and ultimately led to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals finding Section 3 unconstitutional under rational basis review in 2012.
-
In 2010, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. This was also appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling in 2012.
-
The decisions from the 1st and 2nd Circuit Courts of Appeals created a circuit split, increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari to resolve conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA.
Advocates argued that by denying federal recognition and benefits to legally married same-sex couples, Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional: The Windsor Decision
In the 2013 case of United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Key parts of the Court's reasoning included:
- Section 3 violated basic due process and equal protection principles by denying lawfully married same-sex couples equal federal benefits.
- By enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority and intruded on the states' regulation of domestic relations.
- The differentiation made in DOMA raised equal protection concerns by imposing disadvantages and restrictions on same-sex marriages lawfully entered into under state law.
The Windsor ruling struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to recognize legal same-sex marriages. However, the ruling did not establish a federal right to same-sex marriage.
The Aftermath of the Defense of Marriage Act 2013 Ruling
The 2013 Supreme Court ruling on DOMA had several major effects:
- Legally married same-sex couples gained access to federal benefits like tax exemptions, Social Security survivor benefits, family medical leave, and more.
- Federal agencies streamlined processes to extend federal benefits to married same-sex couples.
- The ruling set influential precedent for subsequent cases on same-sex marriage rights.
- However, due to remaining state bans, most same-sex couples still did not have equal marriage rights after the Windsor case.
The Supreme Court's decision marked a milestone victory for marriage equality advocates. However, it stopped short of finding a nationwide right to same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment.
Obergefell v. Hodges: The Final Blow to DOMA
In 2015, the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges used reasoning from Windsor to determine state-level same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The 5-4 ruling established marriage as a fundamental right that states must extend to same-sex couples under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
The Obergefell ruling built upon Windsor by:
- Extending the recognition of marriage as a fundamental liberty and right to same-sex couples nationwide.
- Requiring all states to license and recognize same-sex marriages.
- Resolving remaining uncertainty on the legality of same-sex marriage across the U.S.
Together, Windsor and Obergefell delivered the final blow to DOMA by requiring federal and state governments to recognize same-sex marriages, establishing marriage equality nationwide.
The Impact of DOMA on Same-Sex Marriages and Rights
DOMA denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, preventing them from accessing rights such as tax, Social Security, and inheritance benefits. Its overturning expanded rights, but debates continue on marriage equality.
Federal Benefits Denied Under DOMA
DOMA prevented same-sex couples from filing joint tax returns, accessing Social Security survivor benefits, sponsoring a foreign spouse for immigration, and more. This created economic and legal hardships for families.
Civil Rights and Human Rights Implications of DOMA
DOMA was seen by many as codified discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Its passage galvanized LGBTQ activists to advance marriage equality through impact litigation and lobbying.
Family Law and Legal Education Post-DOMA
With DOMA overturned, family law courses now examine same-sex marriage rights. Issues like interstate recognition of marriages persist, requiring further legal advocacy.
The Defense of Marriage Amendment: A Proposed Response to DOMA's Fall
Some conservatives proposed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman after DOMA fell. However, support for such measures has declined over time.
The Replacement of DOMA with the Respect for Marriage Act
With the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) no longer in effect, the Respect for Marriage Act represents an advancement in the legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the United States. However, there is still progress to be made.
The Respect for Marriage Act would require states to recognize legal same-sex and interracial marriages performed in other states. It does not legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. As legislation continues to evolve on this issue, same-sex couples may face uncertainties around their rights and benefits. Open communication, compassion, and good faith between all parties can help ensure equality under the law.
Concluding Thoughts on DOMA's Rise and Fall
In conclusion, this article has traced DOMA's journey from a broadly supported law in 1996 to a twice Supreme Court-struck-down statute that catalyzed sweeping legal change for same-sex marriage rights over less than 20 years.
Summary of DOMA's Shifting Legal Standing
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It defined marriage as between one man and one woman for federal purposes and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This meant the federal government had to recognize state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. However, Section 2 of DOMA remained, allowing states to refuse recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Then in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges found state-level bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, legalizing it nationwide. This effectively overturned Section 2 of DOMA as well. Within two decades, DOMA went from broad legalization to complete unconstitutionality.
Reflections on the Legacy of the Defense of Marriage Act
The Defense of Marriage Act proved to be a catalyst for the LGBTQ rights movement. It provided a clear target for legal challenges and political activism. By banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages, it highlighted glaring civil rights inequalities.
This energized LGBTQ advocates and allies to mount an aggressive, coordinated campaign to overturn DOMA through impact litigation tactics and political pressure. It became a symbol of discrimination in urgent need of reform.
So while DOMA sought to impede social progress, it had the unintended effect of accelerating it by sparking widespread backlash and protest. Its legacy continues to shape debates around civil rights and protections for minority groups.
The Defense of Marriage Act's Place in Legal History
As a Congressional statute that was fully invalidated by the Supreme Court in under 20 years, the Defense of Marriage Act represents a relatively rare example of sweeping legal change over a short period.
It highlights how public opinion and social norms can shift rapidly on civil rights issues when clear inequalities are highlighted. As laws fail to align with mainstream beliefs on equality and protections, the court faces growing pressure to intervene and update legal standards.
So DOMA leaves a legacy as a lagging indicator - a law that suddenly found itself severely out of step with society's values. This demonstrates how the arc of history, while long, can undergo punctuated periods of sharp, accelerated change through grassroots activism intersecting with judicial review.
