fbpx
Wikipedia

Defense of Marriage Act

October 28, 2023

For other uses, see Defense of marriage amendment.
"DOMA" redirects here. For other uses, see Doma.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

Defense of Marriage Act
Long titleAn Act to define and protect the institution of marriage
Acronyms (colloquial)DOMA
Enacted bythe 104th United States Congress
EffectiveSeptember 21, 1996; 27 years ago (1996-09-21)
Citations
Public lawPub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 104–199 (text) (PDF)
Statutes at Large110 Stat. 2419 (1996)
Codification
Titles amended1 U.S.C. General Provisions
28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
U.S.C. sections created1 U.S.C. § 7 (Struck down, June 26, 2013)
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr (R–GA) on May 7, 1996
  • Committee consideration by House Judiciary
  • Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (342–67)
  • Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (85–14)
  • Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996
Major amendments
Repealed by Respect for Marriage Act
on December 13, 2022
United States Supreme Court cases
United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), in which Section 3 (1 U.S.C. § 7) was struck down by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2013.
Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-566, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), in which Section 2 (1 U.S.C. § 7) was rendered superseded and unenforceable by the Supreme Court.

In the 1980s, socially conservative groups opposed same-sex marriage. Congressman Bob Barr and Senator Don Nickles, both members of the Republican Party, introduced the bill that became DOMA in May 1996. It passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities. Support was bipartisan, though about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it. Clinton criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary". He nonetheless signed it into law in September 1996.

Section 2 of the act allowed states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages conducted by other states. Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns. It also excluded same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers, laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.[1]: 23–24 

After its passage, DOMA was subject to numerous lawsuits and repeal efforts. In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, thereby requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages conducted by the states. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court held that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The ruling required all states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, leaving Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable. On December 13, 2022, DOMA was repealed by the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act which was signed into law by President Joe Biden, who previously voted in favor of DOMA as a Senator of Delaware.

Background edit

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States

The issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriage attracted mainstream attention infrequently until the 1980s. A sympathetic reporter heard several gay men raise the issue in 1967 and described it as "high among the deviate's hopes".[2] In one early incident, gay activist Jack Baker brought suit against the state of Minnesota in 1970 after being denied a marriage license to marry another man; the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled (in Baker v. Nelson) that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate the Constitution. Baker later changed his legal name to Pat Lynn McConnell and married his male partner in 1971, but the marriage was not legally recognized.[3][4] A 1972 off-Broadway play, Nightride, depicted "a black–white homosexual marriage".[5][n 1] In 1979, IntegrityUSA, an organization of gay Episcopalians, raised the issue when the U.S. Episcopal Church considered a ban on the ordination of homosexuals as priests.[6][n 2]

The New York Times said the question was "all but dormant" until the late 1980s when, according to gay activists, "the AIDS epidemic... brought questions of inheritance and death benefits to many people's minds."[7] In May 1989, Denmark established registered partnerships that granted same-sex couples many of the rights associated with marriage.[7] In the same year, New York's highest court ruled that two homosexual men qualified as a family for the purposes of New York City's rent-control regulations.[7] Within the movement for gay and lesbian rights, a debate between advocates of sexual liberation and of social integration was taking shape, with Andrew Sullivan publishing an essay "Here Comes the Groom" in The New Republic in August 1989 arguing for same-sex marriage: "A need to rebel has quietly ceded to a desire to belong."[4] In September 1989, the State Bar Association of California urged recognition of marriages between homosexuals even before gay rights advocates adopted the issue.[7]

Gary Bauer, head of the socially conservative Family Research Council, predicted the issue would be "a major battleground in the 1990s".[7] In 1991, Georgia Attorney General Michael J. Bowers (who had previously been the defendant in a failed Supreme Court challenge to a law that criminalized homosexuality) withdrew a job offer to a lesbian who planned to marry another woman in a Jewish wedding ceremony.[8] In 1993, a committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America released a report asking Lutherans to consider blessing same-sex marriages and stating that lifelong abstinence was harmful to same-sex couples. The Conference of Bishops responded, "There is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship."[9] In a critique of radicalism in the gay liberation movement, Bruce Bawer's A Place at the Table (1993) advocated the legalization of same-sex marriage.[10]

In Baehr v. Miike (1993), the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage.[11] This finding prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage, who feared that same-sex marriage might become legal in Hawaii and that other states would recognize or be compelled to recognize those marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The House Judiciary Committee's 1996 Report called for DOMA as a response to Baehr, because "a redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits".[12]

Text edit

The main provisions of the act were as follows:[13]

Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Enactment and role of President Clinton edit

Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the House of Representatives on May 7, 1996. Senator Don Nickles, (R) Oklahoma, introduced the bill in the Senate.[14] The House Judiciary Committee stated that the Act was intended by Congress to "reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality".[15] The Act's congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."[16]

 
Pat Schroeder arguing against DOMA in the House of Representatives

Nickles said, "If some state wishes to recognize same-sex marriage, they can do so". He said the bill would ensure that "the 49 other states don't have to and the Federal Government does not have to."[14] In opposition to the bill, Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder said, "You can't amend the Constitution with a statute. Everybody knows that. This is just stirring the political waters and seeing what hate you can unleash."[14] Barr countered that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution grants Congress power to determine "the effect" of the obligation of each state to grant "full faith and credit" to other states' acts.[14]

The 1996 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA, referencing only Section 2 of the act: "We reject the distortion of [anti-discrimination] laws to cover sexual preference, and we endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions."[17] The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or same-sex marriage.[18] In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said, "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."[19] However, he also criticized DOMA as unnecessary and divisive.[20]

The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress. On July 12, 1996, with only 65 Democrats and then Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI), in opposition, 342 members of the U.S. House of Representatives—224 Republicans and 118 Democrats—voted to pass DOMA.[21][22] On September 10, 1996, 84 Senators, a majority of the Democratic Senators, including Joe Biden,[23] and all of the Republicans—voted in favor of DOMA.[24][25] Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican Congressman, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin.[25][26]

After Congress had passed DOMA with veto-proof majorities in both houses,[27] Clinton signed the bill into law on September 21, 1996[28][29] late at night behind closed doors.[30] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C.;[31] no signing ceremony was held for DOMA and no photographs were taken of Clinton signing it.[32] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation".[31]

In 2013, Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary at the time, recalled that Clinton's "posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996."[27] James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger.[33]

Following the signing of DOMA, Clinton's public position on same-sex marriage shifted. He spoke out against the passage of California's Proposition 8 and recorded robocalls urging Californians to vote against it.[34] In July 2009, he came out in support of same-sex marriage.[35][36]

Years later, Clinton claimed that he signed DOMA reluctantly in view of the veto-proof congressional majorities in support of the bill, and that he did so to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage and to defuse momentum for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[27][37][38][39] Even so, later the same year, Clinton ran ads on Christian radio stations nationwide promoting his signing of the legislation.[40] The ads were pulled after massive blowback from LGBT groups.[41] Clinton's explanation for signing DOMA has been disputed by gay rights activists Elizabeth Birch[42] and Evan Wolfson.[43]

Impact edit

The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".[44] In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[45] With respect to Social Security, housing, and food stamps, the GAO found that "recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program[s]." The report also noted several other major program categories that were affected—veterans' benefits, including pensions and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts, and property sales; and benefits due federal employees, both civilian and military—and identified specifics such as the rights of the surviving spouse of a creator of copyrighted work and the financial disclosure requirements of spouses of Congress members and certain officers of the federal government. Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses. Financial aid to "family farms" for example, is restricted to those in which "a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood."[44]

Because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) controls most employee benefits provided by private employers, DOMA removed some tax breaks for employers and employees in the private sector when it comes to health care, pension, and disability benefits to same-sex spouses on an equal footing with opposite-sex spouses. ERISA does not affect employees of state and local government or churches, nor does it extend to such benefits as employee leave and vacation.[46]

Under DOMA, persons in same-sex marriages were not considered married for immigration purposes. U.S. citizens and permanent residents in same-sex marriages could not petition for their spouses, nor could they be accompanied by their spouses into the U.S. on the basis of a family or employment-based visa. A non-citizen in such a marriage could not use it as the basis for obtaining a waiver or relief from removal from the U.S.[47]

Following the end of the U.S. military's ban on service by open gays and lesbians, "Don't ask, don't tell," in September 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that DOMA limited the military's ability to extend the same benefits to military personnel in same-sex marriages as their peers in opposite-sex marriages received, notably health benefits.[48] Same-sex spouses of military personnel were denied the same access to military bases, legal counseling, and housing allowances provided to different-sex spouses.[49]

Political debate edit

The 2000 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA in general terms and indicated concern about judicial activism: "We support the traditional definition of 'marriage' as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages."[50] The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage in this context.[51]

Bush administration edit

In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples because he found DOMA to be vulnerable: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."[52] In January 2005, however, he said he would not lobby on its behalf, since too many U.S. senators thought DOMA would not survive a constitutional challenge.[53]

Obama administration edit

President Barack Obama's 2008 political platform endorsed the repeal of DOMA.[54][55] On June 12, 2009, the Justice Department issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States, continuing its longstanding practice of defending all federal laws challenged in court.[56] On June 15, 2009, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese wrote an open letter to Obama that asked for actions to balance the DOJ's courtroom position: "We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."[57] A representative of Lambda Legal, an LGBT impact litigation and advocacy organization, noted that the Obama administration's legal arguments omitted the Bush administration's assertion that households headed by opposite-sex spouses were better at raising children than those headed by same-sex spouses.[56]

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3. He wrote:[58]

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.

He also announced that although it was no longer defending Section 3 in court, the administration intended to continue to enforce the law "unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."[58]

In a separate letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Holder noted that Congress could participate in these lawsuits.[59]

On February 24, the Department of Justice notified the First Circuit Court of Appeals that it would "cease to defend" Gill and Massachusetts as well.[60] On July 1, 2011, the DOJ, with a filing in Golinski, intervened for the first time on behalf of a plaintiff seeking to have DOMA Section 3 ruled unconstitutional, arguing that laws that use sexual orientation as a classification need to pass the court's intermediate scrutiny standard of review.[61] The DOJ made similar arguments in a filing in Gill on July 7.[62]

In June 2012, filing an amicus brief in Golinski, two former Republican Attorneys General, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft, called the DOJ's decision not to defend DOMA Section 3 "an unprecedented and ill-advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice" and "an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm".[63]

Congressional intervention edit

On March 4, 2011, Boehner announced that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) would convene to consider whether the House of Representatives should defend DOMA Section 3 in place of the Department of Justice,[64][65] and on March 9 the committee voted 3–2 to do so.[66]

On April 18, 2011, House leaders announced the selection of former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to represent BLAG.[67] Clement, without opposition from other parties to the case, filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the suit "for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III" of DOMA.[68][69] On April 25, 2011, King & Spalding, the law firm through which Clement was handling the case, announced it was dropping the case. On the same day, Clement resigned from King & Spalding in protest and joined Bancroft PLLC, which took on the case.[70] The House's initial contract with Clement capped legal fees at $500,000,[71] but on September 30 a revised contract raised the cap to $1.5 million.[72] A spokesman for Boehner explained that BLAG would not appeal in all cases, citing bankruptcy cases that are "unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court....[E]ffectively defending [DOMA] does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive."[73]

Challenges to Section 3 in Federal court edit

Numerous plaintiffs have challenged DOMA. Prior to 2009, all federal courts upheld DOMA in its entirety.

Later cases focused on Section 3's definition of marriage. The courts, using different standards, have all found Section 3 unconstitutional. Requests for the Supreme Court to hear appeals were filed in five cases, listed below (with Supreme Court docket numbers):

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management edit

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management was a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA in federal court based on a judicial employee's attempt to receive spousal health benefits for her partner. In 2008, Karen Golinski, a 19-year employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applied for health benefits for her wife. When the application was denied, she filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, in his administrative capacity, ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits,[74] but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that it would not comply with the ruling.

On March 17, 2011, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the suit on procedural grounds but invited Golinski to amend her suit to argue the unconstitutionality of DOMA Section 3,[75] which she did on April 14.[76] Following the Attorney General's decision to no longer defend DOMA,[58] the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), an arm of the House of Representatives, took up the defense. Former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement filed, on BLAG's behalf, a motion to dismiss raising arguments previously avoided by the Department of Justice: that DOMA's definition of marriage is valid "because only a man and a woman can beget a child together, and because historical experience has shown that a family consisting of a married father and mother is an effective social structure for raising children."[77][78] On July 1, 2011, the DOJ filed a brief in support of Golinski's suit, in which it detailed for the first time its case for heightened scrutiny based on "a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities" and its arguments that DOMA Section 3 fails to meet that standard.[61][79]

On February 22, 2012, White ruled for Golinski, finding DOMA "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." He wrote that Section 3 of DOMA could not pass the "heightened scrutiny" or the "rational basis" test. He wrote,[80]

The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

While the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, on July 3, 2012, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Ninth Circuit decides it so it can be heard together with two other cases in which DOMA Section 3 was held unconstitutional, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.[81] The Supreme Court chose to hear Windsor instead of these cases, and following the Supreme Court decision in Windsor the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in Golinski with the consent of all parties on July 23.[82]

Gill and Massachusetts edit

On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a federal court challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government's consistent deference to each state's definition of marriage prior to the enactment of DOMA. The case questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[83][84] On May 6, 2010, Judge Joseph L. Tauro heard arguments in the U.S. District Court in Boston.[85]

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a suit, Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."[86] Tauro, the judge also handling Gill, heard arguments on May 26, 2010.[87]

On July 8, 2010, Tauro issued his rulings in both Gill and Massachusetts, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs in both cases.[88][89] He found in Gill that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Massachusetts he held that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.[90][91] Those decisions were stayed after the DOJ filed an appeal on October 12, 2010.[92]

On November 3, 2011, 133 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Gill and Massachusetts, asserting their belief that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional.[93] Included among the members of Congress signing the brief were 14 members who had voted for the bill in 1996.[93] Seventy major employers also filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs.[94] A three-judge panel heard arguments in the case on April 4, 2012, during which the DOJ for the first time took the position that it could not defend Section 3 of DOMA under any level of scrutiny.[95] On May 31, 2012, the panel unanimously affirmed Tauro's ruling, finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.[96][97] On June 29, BLAG filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.[98] The DOJ did so on July 3, while asking the Supreme Court to review Golinski as well.[81] The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a response to both petitions adding the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment issues as questions presented.[n 3] The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in Windsor.

United States v. Windsor edit

Main article: United States v. Windsor

On November 9, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed United States v. Windsor in New York on behalf of a surviving same-sex spouse whose inheritance from her deceased spouse had been subject to federal taxation as if they were unmarried.[99][100] New York is part of the Second Circuit, where no precedent exists for the standard of review to be followed in sexual-orientation discrimination cases.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a brief supporting Windsor's claim on July 26, 2011.[101]

 
Same-sex couple celebrating legal victory at San Francisco Pride 2013

On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara Jones ruled that based on rational basis review Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the requested tax refund be paid to Windsor. The plaintiff commented, "It's thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers."[102] Windsor's attorneys filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 16, asking for the case to be considered without waiting for the Second Circuit's review.[103] On October 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.[104][105] According to an ACLU press release, this ruling was "the first federal appeals court decision to decide that government discrimination against gay people gets a more exacting level of judicial review".[106] In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated:[107]

Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition, but law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status—however fundamental—and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples.

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[108] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]: 25 

On July 18, 2013, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which had mounted a defense of Section 3 when the administration declined to, acknowledged that in Windsor "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and said "it no longer will defend that statute."[109]

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management edit

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."[110] 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."[111][112] 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.[113] The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in Windsor.

Other cases edit

Other cases that challenged DOMA include:[114]

  • Dragovich v. Department of the Treasury, No. 10-1564 (N.D. Cal.), a class action in which California same-sex couples seek equal access to California's long-term care insurance program for public employees and their families. U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken on May 24, 2012, found Section 3 of DOMA and certain IRS regulations violated the plaintiffs' equal protection rights.[115]
  • Hara v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 09-3134 (Fed. Cir.) Hara is one of the plaintiffs in Gill.
  • Torres-Barragan v. Holder, No. 10-55768 (9th Cir.) An immigration-related DOMA challenge in which the district court rejected the constitutional challenges.[116]
  • Cozen O'Connor v. Tobits, No. 11-00045-CDJ, Pennsylvania, in which two parties dispute who inherits the proceeds of a law firm's profit-sharing plan under ERISA and DOMA. The DOJ filed a brief arguing the unconstitutionality of DOMA.[117] Following the decision in Windsor, Judge C. Darnell Jones II ruled that the widow qualified as the deceased's spouse since Illinois, their state of domicile, recognized them as spouses in a civil union as defined by Illinois.[118] The deceased's parents dropped their appeal on August 30.[119]
  • On April 5, 2012, Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the federal court clerk to reimburse Christopher Nathan, a court employee, for the costs of health insurance coverage for his same-sex spouse comparable to that denied him by Section 3 of DOMA.[120] On November 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference affirmed Ware's decision and ordered the court to determine the amount due Nathan and pay him within 10 days.[121]

Military and veterans cases edit

On October 13, 2011, Carmen Cardona, a U.S. Navy veteran, filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims seeking disability benefits for her wife that the Veterans Administration and the Board of Veterans Appeals had denied.[122] Cardona was represented by the Yale Law School Legal Services Clinic.[123] At the request of BLAG, which defended the government's action, and over Cardona's objections, the court postponed oral argument in Cardona v. Shinseki pending the Supreme Court's disposition of writs of certiorari in other DOMA cases.[124]

On October 27, 2011, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) brought suit in federal court on behalf of several military servicemembers and veterans in same-sex marriages. In a November 21 filing in the case of McLaughlin v. Panetta, they wrote, "Any claim that DOMA, as applied to military spousal benefits, survives rational basis review is strained because paying unequal benefits to service members runs directly counter to the military values of uniformity, fairness and unit cohesion." The benefits at issue include medical and dental benefits, basic housing and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, visitation rights in military hospitals, and survivor benefit plans.[125] The case was assigned to Judge Richard G. Stearns. One of the plaintiffs in the case, lesbian Charlie Morgan, who was undergoing chemotherapy, met with an assistant to Boehner on February 9, 2012, to ask him to consider not defending DOMA.[126] The case is on hold at the request of both sides in anticipation of the outcome of two other First Circuit cases on appeal, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.[127] On February 17, the DOJ announced it could not defend the constitutionality of the statutes challenged in the case.[128] In May 2012, the parties filed briefs arguing whether BLAG has a right to intervene.[129] On June 27, Stearns asked the parties to explain by July 18 why given the decision in Windsor he should not find for the plaintiffs.[130] On July 18, BLAG's response acknowledged that "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case. It took no position on the two statutes at issue in the case, which define a "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex", except to say that "the question of whether [that definition] is constitutional remains open".[131]

Tracey Cooper-Harris, an Army veteran from California, sued the Veterans Administration and the DOJ in federal court on February 1, 2012, asking for her wife to receive the benefits normally granted to spouses of disabled veterans.[132] BLAG sought a delay in Cooper-Harris v. United States pending the resolution of Golinski, which the attorneys for Cooper-Harris, the Southern Poverty Law Center, opposed. The court denied BLAG's motion on August 4.[133] In February 2013, Judge Consuelo Marshall rejected the DOJ's argument that the case could only be heard by the Board of Veterans' Appeals and allowed the case to proceed.[134] BLAG asked to withdraw from the lawsuit on July 22.[135]

Bankruptcy court edit

In May 2011, DOMA-based challenges by the Department of Justice to joint petitions for bankruptcy by married same-sex couples were denied in two cases, one in the Southern District of New York on May 4 and one in the Eastern District of California on May 31. Both rulings stressed practical considerations and avoided ruling on DOMA.[136][137]

On June 13, 2011, 20 of the 25 judges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California signed an opinion in the case in re Balas and Morales that found that a same-sex married couple filing for bankruptcy "have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled." The decision found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and dismissed BLAG's objections to the joint filing:[138][139]

Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors' right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors.

A spokesman for House Speaker Boehner said BLAG would not appeal the ruling,[140] On July 7, 2011, the DOJ announced that after consultation with BLAG it would no longer raise objections to "bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same-sex couples who are married under state law".[141]

Immigration cases edit

Bi-national same-sex couples were kept from legally living in the United States by DOMA's Section 3, which prevented one spouse from sponsoring the other for a green card.[142] Following some uncertainty after the Obama Administration determined Section 3 to be unconstitutional, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reaffirmed its policy of denying such applications.[143] With respect to obtaining a visitor's visa, Bureau rules treated bi-national same-sex spouses the same as bi-national opposite-sex unmarried partners under the classification "cohabiting partners".[144]

Tim Coco and Genesio J. Oliveira, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts in 2005, successfully challenged this policy and developed a model since followed by other immigration activists.[145] The U.S. refused to recognize their marriage, and in 2007 Oliveira, a Brazilian national, accepted "voluntary departure" and returned to Brazil. They conducted a national press campaign[146] A Boston Globe editorial commented, "Great strides toward equality for gays have been made in this country, but the woeful fate of Tim Coco and Genesio Oliveira shows that thousands of same-sex couples, even in Massachusetts, still aren't really full citizens."[147] The editorial gained the attention of Senator John F. Kerry, who first lobbied Attorney General Eric Holder without success.[148] He then gained the support of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who granted Oliveira humanitarian parole, enabling the couple to reunite in the U.S. in June 2010.[149] Humanitarian parole is granted on a case-by-case basis at the Secretary's discretion.[150]

On September 28, 2011, in Lui v. Holder, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson rejected a challenge to DOMA, citing Adams v. Howerton (1982).[151] The plaintiffs in that case had unsuccessfully challenged the denial of immediate relative status to the same-sex spouse of an American citizen.[152][153] Early in 2012, two bi-national same-sex couples were granted "deferred action" status, suspending deportation proceedings against the non-U.S. citizen for a year.[154][155] A similar Texas couple had a deportation case dismissed in March 2012, leaving the non-citizen spouse unable to work legally in the United States but no longer subject to the threat of deportation.[156]

On January 5, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago decided the suit of a same-sex binational couple. Demos Revelis and Marcel Maas, married in Iowa in 2010, sought to prevent the USCIS from applying Section 3 of DOMA to Revelis's application for a permanent residence visa for Maas and, in the court's words, "that their petition be reviewed and decided on the same basis as other married couples."[157] Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, a Reagan appointee, denied the government's motion to dismiss. BLAG has argued for the suit to be dismissed.[158] In July the court stayed proceedings until mid-October because the USCIS was considering denying the plaintiffs' request on grounds unrelated to DOMA.[159]

On April 2, 2012, five bi-national same-sex couples represented by Immigration Equality and Paul, Weiss filed a lawsuit, Blesch v. Holder, in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claiming that Section 3 of DOMA violated their equal protection rights by denying the U.S. citizen in the relationship the same rights in the green card application process granted a U.S. citizen who is in a relationship of partners of the opposite sex.[158] On July 25, Chief Judge Carol Amon stayed the case pending the resolution of Windsor by the Second Circuit.[160]

Immigration rights advocate Lavi Soloway reported on June 19, 2012, that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had in four cases responded to green card denials on the part of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by asking the USCIS to document the marital status of the same-sex couples and determine whether the foreign national would qualify for a green card in the absence of DOMA Section 3. He said the BIA is "essentially setting the stage for being able to approve the petitions in a post-DOMA universe."[161]

On April 19, 2013, U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall ordered that a suit brought in July 2012 by Jane DeLeon, a Philippine citizen, and her spouse, Irma Rodriguez, a U.S. citizen, could proceed as a class action. The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, contended that DeLeon was denied a residency waiver because of DOMA Section 3.[162][163]

On June 28, 2013, the USCIS notified U.S. citizen Julian Marsh that it had approved the green card petition for his Bulgarian husband Traian Popov. Both are residents of Florida.[164] On July 3, the USCIS office in Centennial, Colorado, granted Cathy Davis, a citizen of Ireland, a green card based on her marriage to U.S. citizen Catriona Dowling.[165]

Tribunals edit

In 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt declared DOMA unconstitutional in in re Levenson, an employment dispute resolution tribunal case, where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson.[166][167] As an employee of the federal judiciary, Levenson is prohibited from suing his employer in federal court. Rather, employment disputes are handled at employment dispute resolution tribunals in which a federal judge hears the dispute in their capacity as a dispute resolution official.

Challenges to Section 2 in federal court edit

Section 2 of DOMA states to give legal relief to any state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Section 2 posits a conflict between states' rights and civil rights. Various federal lawsuits, some filed alongside challenges to Section 3, have challenged Section 2.

  • In re Kandu: A same-sex couple in the state of Washington, who had married in Canada, attempted to file a joint bankruptcy petition, but were not allowed to do so.[168][169]
  • Wilson v. Ake, an unsuccessful attempt by a Florida same-sex couple, married in Massachusetts, to have their marriage license accepted in Florida.[n 4]
  • Smelt v. Orange County and Smelt v. United States: In February 2004, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer sued Orange County, California, in federal court for refusing to issue them a marriage license. The district court ruled that the couple did not have standing to challenge Section 2 of DOMA and rejected their challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3. On May 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit,[171] and on October 10 the United States Supreme Court refused to consider the couple's appeal.[172] On March 9, 2009, the same couple, having legally married in California, filed Smelt v. United States, challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California's Proposition 8.[173] District Judge David O. Carter dismissed the case on August 24, because the couple had not applied for and been denied any federal benefit and therefore lacked "an injury in fact."[174]
  • Bishop v. United States: Two lesbian couples in Oklahoma, one of which couples sought a marriage license and the other to have the state recognize either their Canadian marriage or their Vermont civil union.[175][176] The court stayed consideration of the case pending the outcome of Windsor. Later it ruled the couple challenging Section 2 did not have standing, but ruled Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional under Bishop v. Oklahoma.

Obergefell v. Hodges edit

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.[177] This left Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable.

Repeal edit

Further information: Respect for Marriage Act

On September 15, 2009, three Democratic members of Congress, Jerrold Nadler of New York, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jared Polis of Colorado, introduced legislation to repeal DOMA called the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill had 91 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives[178][179] and was supported by Clinton, Barr, and several legislators who voted for DOMA.[180] Congressman Barney Frank and John Berry, head of the Office of Personnel Management, did not support that effort, stating that "the backbone is not there" in Congress. Frank and Berry suggested DOMA could be overturned more quickly through lawsuits such as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).[181][182]

Following Holder's announcement that the Obama Administration would no longer defend DOMA Section 3 in court, on March 16, 2011, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate again[183] and Nadler introduced it in the House.[184] The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10–8 in favor of advancing the bill to the Senate floor, but observers believed it would not gain the 60 votes needed to end debate and bring it to a vote.[185]

After the Supreme Court struck down DOMA Section 3 on June 26, 2013, Feinstein and Nadler reintroduced the Respect for Marriage Act as S. 1236 and H.R. 2523. The Respect for Marriage Act cleared the 60 vote filibuster hurdle on November 16, 2022, when the Senate voted 62–37 to advance it.[186] Joe Biden signed the repeal on December 13, 2022.

See also edit

Explanatory notes edit

  1. ^ For a review of the play see Barnes, Clive (December 10, 1971). "'Nightride'–No Apologies and No Regrets" (PDF). The New York Times. (PDF) from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  2. ^ For the theological background beginning in 1967, see Fiske, Edward B. (December 3, 1967). "Views on Homosexuals" (PDF). The New York Times. (PDF) from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  3. ^ The Commonwealth also filed its own petition in Massachusetts in case the court found the response was not the proper way to raise those issues.
  4. ^ The court held that in enacting Section 2 of DOMA "Congress’ actions are an appropriate exercise of its power to regulate conflicts between the laws of two different States" under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.[170]

Citations edit

  1. ^ a b Supreme Court of the United States (June 26, 2015). "United States v. Windsor" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. (PDF) from the original on July 2, 2013.
  2. ^ Schott, Webster (November 12, 1967). "Civil Rights and the Homosexual: A 4-Million Minority Asks for Equal Rights" (PDF). The New York Times. (PDF) from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved March 28, 2012.
  3. ^ "Homosexual Wins Fight to Take Bar Examination in Minnesota" (PDF). The New York Times. January 7, 1973. (PDF) from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved February 6, 2012.
  4. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (May 4, 2011). "Domestic Disturbance". Metro Weekly. Retrieved February 10, 2012.
  5. ^ Barton, Lee (pseudonym) (January 23, 1973). "Why Do Homosexual Playwrights Hide their Homosexuality?" (PDF). The New York Times. (PDF) from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  6. ^ Sheppard, Nathaniel (September 17, 1979). "Panel bids Episcopalians Bar Homosexual priests" (PDF). The New York Times. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  7. ^ a b c d e Gutis, Philip S. (November 5, 1989). "Small Steps Toward Acceptance Renew Debate on Gay Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2012.
  8. ^ "Georgia Denies Gay Lawyer a Job". The New York Times. October 6, 1991. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  9. ^ Lewin, Tamar (October 21, 1993). "Lutherans Asked to Decide On Blessing of Gay Unions". The New York Times. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  10. ^ Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher (November 11, 1993). "A Strong Gay Dissent On Public Spectacles". The New York Times. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  11. ^ The case was originally Baehr v. Lewin. . State of Hawaii. 1995. Archived from the original on September 29, 2000. Retrieved January 18, 2009.
  12. ^ United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (July 9, 1996). "Report 104-664: Defense of Marriage Act" (PDF). pp. 4–11. (PDF) from the original on June 1, 2009. Retrieved August 15, 2013.
  13. ^ "Defense of Marriage Act". United States Government Printing Office. September 21, 1996. Retrieved January 18, 2009.
  14. ^ a b c d Dunlap, David W. (May 9, 1996). "Congressional Bills Withhold Sanction of Same-Sex Unions". The New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2012.
  15. ^ Goodwin, Liz (March 27, 2013). "Lawmakers' 'moral disapproval' of gay people in 1996 could doom DOMA law in Supreme Court". Yahoo! News. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  16. ^ Stewart, Chuck (2018). Documents of the LGBT movement. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 149. ISBN 9781440855023.
  17. ^ "Republican Party Platform of 1996". American Presidency Project. August 12, 1996. Retrieved July 15, 2010.
  18. ^ "Democratic Party Platform of 1996". American Presidency Project. August 26, 1996. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  19. ^ Frumin, Aliyah. "Timeline: Bill Clinton's evolution on gay rights". MSNBC. NBC News Digital. Retrieved October 16, 2021.
  20. ^ Issenberg, Sasha (September 18, 2021). "Bill Clinton Tried to Avoid the DOMA Trap Republicans Set. Instead, He Trapped Himself". POLITICO.
  21. ^ "Final vote results for roll call 316". United States House of Representatives. July 12, 1996. Retrieved January 18, 2009.
  22. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 13, 2011). "Marriage Wars". Metro Weekly. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
  23. ^ Liptak, Kevin; Lee, MJ; Klein, Betsy (December 13, 2022). "Biden signs into law same-sex marriage bill, 10 years after his famous Sunday show answer on the issue". CNN Politics. Retrieved December 13, 2022.
  24. ^ "On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3396)". United States Senate. September 10, 1996. Retrieved January 18, 2009.
  25. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (September 14, 2011). "Double Defeat". Metro Weekly. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
  26. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 14, 2011). "Marriage Wars". Metro Weekly. Retrieved February 10, 2012.
  27. ^ a b c Baker, Peter (March 25, 2013). "Now in Defense of Gay Marriage, Bill Clinton". The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2013.
  28. ^ Call, James. "'A horrible law': Florida lawmakers seek repeal of defunct ban on same-sex marriage". Tallahassee Democrat.
  29. ^ Geidner, Chris (October 30, 2015). "There's No Evidence In Clinton White House Documents For Clintons' Story On Anti-Gay Law". BuzzFeed News.
  30. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (October 26, 2015). "Bill Clinton Signed DOMA for Terrible Reasons. It Was Still the Right Thing to Do" – via slate.com.
  31. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (September 29, 2011). "Becoming Law". Metro Weekly. Retrieved February 10, 2012.
  32. ^ Collins, David (August 17, 2017). Accidental Activists: Mark Phariss, Vic Holmes, and Their Fight for Marriage. Denton, Texas: University of North Texas Press. p. 74. ISBN 9781574417036. Retrieved November 29, 2022.
  33. ^ "David Perry interviews Ambassador James C. Hormel on his new book." Youtube.com
  34. ^ "Bill Clinton on Prop 8: 'It's Unfair and It's Wrong.'" Queerty.
  35. ^ Galloway, Jim (July 14, 2009). . The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on July 18, 2009.
  36. ^ Tracey, Michael (July 14, 2009). "Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage". The Nation.
  37. ^ Clinton, Bill (March 7, 2013). "It's time to overturn DOMA." The Washington Post
  38. ^ "Bill Clinton's Justifications for Signing DOMA". New York Magazine. February 26, 2012. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
  39. ^ Johnson, Chris (October 25, 2015). "Gay activists unhappy with Clinton remarks on DOMA". Washington Blade. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
  40. ^ Kaczynski, Andrew (October 10, 2016). "Listen to Bill Clinton's 1996 radio ad touting his passage of DOMA". CNN. Retrieved January 22, 2020.
  41. ^ Kaczynski, Andrew (October 10, 2016). "Listen to Bill Clinton's 1996 radio ad touting his passage of DOMA | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  42. ^ Birch, Elizabeth (March 12, 2013). . AMERICAblog News. Archived from the original on September 8, 2015. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
  43. ^ Geidner, Chris (September 29, 2011). "Becoming Law". Metro Weekly. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
  44. ^ a b "OGC-97-16: Defense of Marriage Act" (PDF). General Accounting Office. January 31, 1997. (PDF) from the original on May 5, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  45. ^ "GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report" (PDF). General Accounting Office. January 23, 2004. (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2004. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  46. ^ "Providing benefits to same-sex spouses of employees: Legal issues, best practices". ABA Journal. America Bar Association (December 2011). Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  47. ^ . Immigration Policy Center. August 18, 2011. Archived from the original on September 20, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  48. ^ Heller, Marc (September 21, 2011). "Gillibrand Urges Equal Benefits". Daily Courier-Observer. Archived from the original on January 29, 2013. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  49. ^ Dao, James (July 16, 2011). "Same-Sex Marriage Faces Military Limits". The New York Times. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  50. ^ "Democratic Party Platform of 2000". American Presidency Project. July 31, 2000. Retrieved July 15, 2010.
  51. ^ "Democratic Party Platform of 1996". American Presidency Project. August 14, 2000. Retrieved July 15, 2010.
  52. ^ "Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages". CNN. February 25, 2004. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  53. ^ Hoffecker, Leslie (January 17, 2005). . Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on January 15, 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  54. ^ (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 17, 2008.
  55. ^ . Archived from the original on May 8, 2009. Retrieved May 7, 2009.
  56. ^ a b . Huffington Post. June 12, 2009. Archived from the original on June 14, 2009. Retrieved June 12, 2009.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  57. ^ Solmonese, Joe (June 15, 2009). (PDF). Human Rights Campaign. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 17, 2009. Retrieved September 7, 2009.
  58. ^ a b c Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act, February 23, 2011. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
  59. ^ "Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act". February 23, 2011. Retrieved June 26, 2015.
  60. ^ (PDF). GLAD. February 24, 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 24, 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2011.
  61. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (July 1, 2011). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 3, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
  62. ^ (PDF). GLAD. July 7, 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 3, 2011. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  63. ^ Geidner, Chris (June 11, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on June 17, 2012. Retrieved June 12, 2012.
  64. ^ "Boehner: House Will Defend DOMA; Courts, Not Obama, Should Decide". National Public Radio. March 4, 2011. Retrieved March 4, 2011.
  65. ^ "Boehner Launches Effort to Defend Gay Marriage Ban". FOX News. March 4, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  66. ^ Sonmez, Felicia (March 9, 2011). "House to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court". The Washington Post.
  67. ^ Todd, Ross (April 18, 2012). "King & Spalding's Clement to Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage". AmLawDaily. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  68. ^ Geidner, Chris (April 18, 2011). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on April 25, 2011. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
  69. ^ Windsor v. United States, Unopposed Motion of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives to Intervene for a Limited Purpose September 20, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
  70. ^ Berman, Russell; Strauss, Daniel (April 25, 2011). "GOP pushes on with marriage act defense after law firm backs out". The Hill. Washington, D.C. ISSN 1521-1568. OCLC 31153202. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
  71. ^ . MSNBC. April 20, 2011. Archived from the original on April 23, 2011. Retrieved April 27, 2011.
  72. ^ Sonmez, Felicia (October 4, 2011). "House raises salary cap for DOMA lawyer to $1.5 million". The Washington Post.
  73. ^ Schwartz, John (June 14, 2011). "A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U.S. Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved February 13, 2012.
  74. ^ Pear, Robert (March 12, 2009). "Obama on Spot Over a Benefit to Gay Couples". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2011.
  75. ^ Levine, Dan (March 16, 2011). "Lesbian U.S. employee set back in benefits fight". Reuters. Retrieved March 17, 2011.
  76. ^ Golinski v. OPM, Second Amended Complaint. April 14, 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2011
  77. ^ Geidner, Chris (June 10, 2011). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on June 12, 2011. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
  78. ^ Golinski v. OPM, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint May 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. June 3, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2012.
  79. ^ Golinski v. OPM, Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss May 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. July 1, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
  80. ^ Geidner, Chris (February 22, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on February 23, 2012. Retrieved February 22, 2012.
  81. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (July 3, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 4, 2012. Retrieved July 3, 2012.
  82. ^ "Order: Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management". Lambda Legal. Retrieved July 23, 2013.
  83. ^ Goodnough, Abby; Zezima, Katie (March 2, 2009). "Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples". The New York Times. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
  84. ^ . GLAD. Archived from the original on March 6, 2009.
  85. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (May 6, 2010). "Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination". The New York Times. Retrieved June 5, 2010.
  86. ^ Finucane, Martin (July 8, 2009). "Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
  87. ^ "Massachusetts challenges Marriage Act". UPI. May 26, 2010. Retrieved June 28, 2013.
  88. ^ Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Mass. 2010). Retrieved February 10, 2012.
  89. ^ Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010). Retrieved February 10, 2012.
  90. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 8, 2010). . Archived from the original on July 12, 2010. Retrieved July 8, 2010.
  91. ^ Bay Windows. July 8, 2010.
  92. ^ Lavoie, Denise (October 12, 2010). "Feds Appeal Mass Rulings against U.S. Marriage Law". The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 13, 2010.
  93. ^ a b Mackenzie Weinger (November 3, 2011). "DOMA opposed by 133 House Democrats". Politico. Retrieved November 3, 2011.
  94. ^ Reilly, Peter J. (November 4, 2011). "Seventy Major Employers Line Up Against DOMA". Forbes.
  95. ^ Geidner, Chris (April 4, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on April 5, 2012. Retrieved April 4, 2012.
  96. ^ Jeffrey, Don; Dolmetsch, Chris (May 31, 2012). "Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Says". Bloomberg. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
  97. ^ Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services June 1, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, No. 10-2204, slip op. (May 31, 2012).
  98. ^ Johnson, Chris (June 20, 2012). "Boehner appeals DOMA cases to Supreme Court". Washington Blade. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
  99. ^ Schwartz, John (November 8, 2010). "Gay Couples to Sue Over U.S. Marriage Law". The New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2011.
  100. ^ Andrew M. Harris (February 28, 2011). "Widow's $363,000 Tax Bill Led to Obama Shift on Marriage Act". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved July 31, 2011.
  101. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 26, 2011). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on August 6, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2011.
  102. ^ Geidner, Chris (June 6, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on June 7, 2012. Retrieved June 6, 2012.
  103. ^ Snow, Justin (July 16, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 22, 2012. Retrieved July 16, 2012.
  104. ^ Baynes, Terry (October 18, 2012). "Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act". Reuters. Retrieved October 18, 2012.
  105. ^ (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 8, 2013. Retrieved October 18, 2012.
  106. ^ "Federal Appeals Court Declares "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional". ACLU Press Release. Retrieved July 25, 2013.
  107. ^ Weiss, Debra Cassens (October 18, 2012). "2nd Circuit Rules for Surviving Gay Spouse, Says DOMA Violates Equal Protection Clause". ABA Journal. Retrieved October 18, 2012.
  108. ^ Stempel, Jonathan (January 7, 2013). "Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases in late March". Reuters. Retrieved January 7, 2013.
  109. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 18, 2013). "House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight". BuzzFeed. Retrieved July 18, 2013.
  110. ^ Bolcer, Julie (July 31, 2012). "Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional in Pedersen Case". Retrieved July 31, 2012.
  111. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 31, 2012). "Federal Trial Court In Connecticut Strikes Down DOMA's Marriage Definition". BuzzFeed Politics. Retrieved July 31, 2012.
  112. ^ Geidner, Ryan J. (July 31, 2012). "Bush Appointee Rules DOMA Unconstitutional". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved July 31, 2012.
  113. ^ Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment September 24, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved August 21, 2012.
  114. ^ "Pending cases where the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged". February 28, 2011.
  115. ^ Geidner, Chris (May 25, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on May 25, 2012. Retrieved May 25, 2012.
  116. ^ "Torres-Barragan v. Holder". Civilo Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. University of Michigan Law School. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
  117. ^ Passarella, Gina (January 9, 2012). "U.S. Justice Department argues that Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
  118. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 29, 2013). "Federal Judge Says DOMA Ruling Changes Private Companies' Retirement Plans". BuzzFeed. Retrieved August 2, 2013.
  119. ^ Packel, Dan (August 30, 2013). "Late Cozen Atty's Family Drops Same-Sex Benefits Fight". Law 360. Retrieved August 31, 2013.
  120. ^ Egelko, Bob (April 5, 2012). "Same-sex benefits denial is ruled discriminatory". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
  121. ^ Egelko, Bob (November 25, 2012). "Same-sex case ruling favors gay employee". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
  122. ^ Dao, James (October 12, 2011). "Denied Veterans Benefits Over Same-Sex Marriage, Ex-Sailor Challenges Law". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2012.
  123. ^ "Cardona v. Shinseki". Veterans Legal Services Clinic. Yale Law School. Retrieved October 3, 2012.
  124. ^ Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: Number:11-3083, accessed November 26, 2012
  125. ^ Geidner, Chris (November 23, 2011). "SLDN Takes Aim at DOMA". Metro Weekly. Retrieved February 11, 2012.
  126. ^ Stone, Andrea (February 9, 2012). "Charlie Morgan, Lesbian Guardsman With Cancer, Meets John Boehner Staffer To Push DOMA Repeal". Huffington Post. Retrieved February 11, 2012.
  127. ^ Geidner, Chris (February 16, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved February 17, 2012.
  128. ^ Geidner, Chris (February 17, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on February 19, 2012. Retrieved February 17, 2012.
  129. ^ "Boehner moves to defend anti-gay DOMA in military case". Wisconsin Gazette. May 4, 2012. Archived from the original on February 9, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2012.
  130. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 17, 2013). "House Republicans Face Decision On Fighting Gay Veterans' Spousal Benefits". BuzzFeed. Retrieved July 17, 2013.
  131. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 18, 2013). "House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight". BuzzFeed. Retrieved July 18, 2013.
  132. ^ . Pasadena Sun. February 1, 2012. Archived from the original on May 11, 2012. Retrieved February 11, 2012.
  133. ^ Snow, Justin (August 3, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on August 6, 2012. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  134. ^ "Tracey Cooper-Harris, Gay California Veteran, Moves Forward With DOMA Lawsuit". Huffington Post. February 25, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.
  135. ^ Application to Withdraw, accessed July 23, 2013
  136. ^ . American Bankruptcy Institute. June 3, 2011. Archived from the original on June 10, 2011. Retrieved June 9, 2011.
  137. ^ In re Somers and Caggiano September 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, 10-38296, slip op. (Bky.S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011). Retrieved June 9, 2011.
  138. ^ Geidner, Chris (June 13, 2011). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on June 17, 2011. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
  139. ^ "Bankruptcy Court rules section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional". SDGLN. June 13, 2011. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
  140. ^ Schwartz, John (June 14, 2011). "A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U.S. Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved June 16, 2011.
  141. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 7, 2011). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on July 10, 2011. Retrieved July 7, 2011.
  142. ^ Wernick, Allan (June 10, 2009). "Vermont Senator urges same-sex marriages OK for 'immigrant spouses'". New York Daily News. Retrieved December 19, 2011.
  143. ^ Geidner, Chris (March 30, 2011). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on April 1, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2011.
  144. ^ . Travel.state.gov. Archived from the original on March 26, 2011. Retrieved March 28, 2011.
  145. ^ Preston, Julia (May 8, 2011). "Justice Dept. to Continue Policy Against Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
  146. ^ "Mass. ad exec fights two battles with ads". AdWeek. April 29, 2008. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
  147. ^ . Boston Globe. August 27, 2007. Archived from the original on June 20, 2010. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
  148. ^ Trujillo, Meilssa (March 20, 2009). "Kerry Seeks Asylum For Gay Brazilian Wed In Mass". Huffington Post. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
  149. ^ Sacchetti, Maria (June 4, 2010). "Gay couple get a boost in winning bid to reunite". The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
  150. ^ Bernstein, Nina (October 14, 2005). "A Contest of Suffering, With the U.S. as a Prize". The New York Times. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
  151. ^ 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982).
  152. ^ Lui v. Holder October 10, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. September 28, 2011). Retrieved October 4, 2011.
  153. ^ Harmon, Andrew (September 29, 2011). "Judge Throws Out Binational Couple's DOMA Lawsuit". The Advocate. Retrieved October 4, 2011.
  154. ^ Wong, Curtis (January 5, 2012). "Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk, San Francisco Gay Married Couple, Win Deportation Reprieve For Two Years". Huffington Post. Retrieved February 9, 2012.
  155. ^ Foley, Elise (February 9, 2012). "Same-Sex Couple Wins Immigration Relief, Despite Defense Of Marriage Act". Huffington Post. Retrieved February 9, 2012.
  156. ^ Carroll, Susan (March 9, 2012). "Gay, married immigrant spared from deportation". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved March 10, 2012.
  157. ^ Revelis v. Napolitano September 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, 11 C 1991, slip op. (N.D. Ill. January 5, 2012). Retrieved March 2, 2012.
  158. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (April 2, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on April 6, 2012. Retrieved April 2, 2012.
  159. ^ Revelis v. Napolitano, granting motion to stay September 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, July 12, 2012. Retrieved August 2, 2012
  160. ^ "Blesch v. Holder (Immigration Equality's DOMA case) put on hold". Prop8TrialTracker. Archived from the original on February 1, 2013. Retrieved July 30, 2012.
  161. ^ Geidner, Chris (June 19, 2012). . Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on June 21, 2012. Retrieved June 19, 2012.
  162. ^ "Judge rules lesbian immigrant can challenge DOMA". U-T San Diego. April 20, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  163. ^ Dobuzinskis, Alex (July 13, 2012). "Lesbian immigrant from PH challenges US gay marriage ban". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
  164. ^ Reilly, Mollie (June 29, 2013). "Gay Couple Receives Green Card After Supreme Court Ruling: DOMA Project". Huffington Post. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
  165. ^ Bunch, Joey (July 5, 2013). "Boulder lesbian couple gets green card after DOMA falls - The Denver Post". Denver Post. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  166. ^ 560 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2009).
  167. ^ "Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional". Los Angeles Times. February 9, 2009. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
  168. ^ In re Kandu October 28, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004). Retrieved February 26, 2011.
  169. ^ "DOMA's Unlikely Victim's". The Advocate. September 28, 2004. p. 15. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  170. ^ Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005).
  171. ^ Smelt v. County of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006). Retrieved August 2, 2012.
  172. ^ "Bay Area Reporter". Bay Area Reporter.
  173. ^ Smelt v. United States, Notice of Removal. Retrieved November 6, 2009.
  174. ^ "Gay California couple's lawsuit dismissed". UPI. Retrieved February 26, 2011.
  175. ^ Bishop v. Oklahoma, 447 F.Supp.2d 1239 (N.D. Okla. 2006). Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  176. ^ Bishop v. US, No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW, slip op. (N.D. Okla. November 24, 2009). Retrieved August 1, 2012.
  177. ^ Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, ___ (2015) ("The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.").
  178. ^ Bernie Becker (September 15, 2009). "House Dems Take Aim at Marriage Law". The New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2010.
  179. ^ Eleveld, Kerry (September 15, 2009). "Respect for Marriage Act Debuts". The Advocate. Retrieved September 15, 2009.
  180. ^ (Press release). United States House of Representatives. September 15, 2009. Archived from the original on July 12, 2011. Retrieved June 6, 2012.
  181. ^ "Frank Will Not Support DOMA Repeal". EDGE Boston. September 14, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2011.
  182. ^ Johnson, Chris (September 28, 2009). . Washington Blade. Archived from the original on October 2, 2009. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
  183. ^ S. 598
  184. ^ H.R. 1116
  185. ^ "Senate panel OKs repeal of Defense of Marriage Act". USA Today. Associated Press. November 10, 2011.
  186. ^ Karni, Annie (November 16, 2022). "Same-Sex Marriage Rights Bill Clears a Crucial Senate Hurdle". The New York Times. Retrieved November 17, 2022. ...it would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples.

General and cited references section edit

  • Feigen, Brenda. "Same-Sex Marriage: An Issue of Constitutional rights not Moral Opinions". 2004. 27 Harv. Women's L. J. 345.
  • Carter, W. Burlette. "The Federal Law of Marriage: Deference, Deviation and DOMA." 2013. 21 Am. U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol'y & L 70; The 'Federal Law of Marriage': Deference, Deviation, and DOMA
  • "Same Sex Marriage Passage". CQ Weekly. Congressional Quarterly. May 2, 2005.
  • "Litigating the Defense of Marriage Act: The Next Battleground for Same-Sex Marriage." 2004. 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2684. doi:10.2307/4093411. JSTOR 4093411.
  • Manning, Jason (April 30, 2004). . The Online News Hour. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Archived from the original on November 9, 2013. Retrieved January 13, 2007.
  • United States. 104th Congress. Defense of Marriage Act. House of Representatives Committee Report. 1996.
  • Wardle, Lynn D. "A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Claims for Same Sex Marriage." 1996. 1996 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1.

External links edit

 
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Defense of Marriage Act
 
Wikinews has news related to:
Defense of Marriage Act
  • GovTrack
  • Library of Congress

October 28, 2023
defense, marriage, other, uses, defense, marriage, amendment, doma, redirects, here, other, uses, doma, doma, united, states, federal, passed, 104th, united, states, congress, signed, into, president, bill, clinton, september, 1996, banned, federal, recognitio. For other uses see Defense of marriage amendment DOMA redirects here For other uses see Doma The Defense of Marriage Act DOMA was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21 1996 It banned federal recognition of same sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same sex marriages granted under the laws of other states Defense of Marriage ActLong titleAn Act to define and protect the institution of marriageAcronyms colloquial DOMAEnacted bythe 104th United States CongressEffectiveSeptember 21 1996 27 years ago 1996 09 21 CitationsPublic lawPub L Tooltip Public Law United States 104 199 text PDF Statutes at Large110 Stat 2419 1996 CodificationTitles amended1 U S C General Provisions28 U S C Judiciary and Judicial ProcedureU S C sections created1 U S C 7 Struck down June 26 2013 Legislative historyIntroduced in the House as H R 3396 by Bob Barr R GA on May 7 1996Committee consideration by House JudiciaryPassed the House on July 12 1996 342 67 Passed the Senate on September 10 1996 85 14 Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21 1996Major amendmentsRepealed by Respect for Marriage Acton December 13 2022United States Supreme Court casesUnited States v Windsor No 12 307 570 U S 744 2013 in which Section 3 1 U S C 7 was struck down by the Supreme Court on June 26 2013 Obergefell v Hodges No 14 566 576 U S 644 2015 in which Section 2 1 U S C 7 was rendered superseded and unenforceable by the Supreme Court In the 1980s socially conservative groups opposed same sex marriage Congressman Bob Barr and Senator Don Nickles both members of the Republican Party introduced the bill that became DOMA in May 1996 It passed both houses of Congress by large veto proof majorities Support was bipartisan though about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it Clinton criticized DOMA as divisive and unnecessary He nonetheless signed it into law in September 1996 Section 2 of the act allowed states to deny recognition of same sex marriages conducted by other states Section 3 codified non recognition of same sex marriages for all federal purposes including insurance benefits for government employees social security survivors benefits immigration bankruptcy and the filing of joint tax returns It also excluded same sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers laws evaluating financial aid eligibility and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite sex spouses 1 23 24 After its passage DOMA was subject to numerous lawsuits and repeal efforts In United States v Windsor 2013 the U S Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause thereby requiring the federal government to recognize same sex marriages conducted by the states In Obergefell v Hodges 2015 the Court held that same sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause The ruling required all states to perform and recognize the marriages of same sex couples leaving Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable On December 13 2022 DOMA was repealed by the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act which was signed into law by President Joe Biden who previously voted in favor of DOMA as a Senator of Delaware Contents 1 Background 2 Text 3 Enactment and role of President Clinton 4 Impact 5 Political debate 5 1 Bush administration 5 2 Obama administration 5 3 Congressional intervention 6 Challenges to Section 3 in Federal court 6 1 Golinski v Office of Personnel Management 6 2 Gill and Massachusetts 6 3 United States v Windsor 6 4 Pedersen v Office of Personnel Management 6 5 Other cases 6 5 1 Military and veterans cases 6 5 2 Bankruptcy court 6 5 3 Immigration cases 6 5 4 Tribunals 7 Challenges to Section 2 in federal court 7 1 Obergefell v Hodges 8 Repeal 9 See also 10 Explanatory notes 11 Citations 12 General and cited references section 13 External linksBackground editMain article Same sex marriage in the United States The issue of legal recognition of same sex marriage attracted mainstream attention infrequently until the 1980s A sympathetic reporter heard several gay men raise the issue in 1967 and described it as high among the deviate s hopes 2 In one early incident gay activist Jack Baker brought suit against the state of Minnesota in 1970 after being denied a marriage license to marry another man the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Baker v Nelson that limiting marriage to opposite sex couples did not violate the Constitution Baker later changed his legal name to Pat Lynn McConnell and married his male partner in 1971 but the marriage was not legally recognized 3 4 A 1972 off Broadway play Nightride depicted a black white homosexual marriage 5 n 1 In 1979 IntegrityUSA an organization of gay Episcopalians raised the issue when the U S Episcopal Church considered a ban on the ordination of homosexuals as priests 6 n 2 The New York Times said the question was all but dormant until the late 1980s when according to gay activists the AIDS epidemic brought questions of inheritance and death benefits to many people s minds 7 In May 1989 Denmark established registered partnerships that granted same sex couples many of the rights associated with marriage 7 In the same year New York s highest court ruled that two homosexual men qualified as a family for the purposes of New York City s rent control regulations 7 Within the movement for gay and lesbian rights a debate between advocates of sexual liberation and of social integration was taking shape with Andrew Sullivan publishing an essay Here Comes the Groom in The New Republic in August 1989 arguing for same sex marriage A need to rebel has quietly ceded to a desire to belong 4 In September 1989 the State Bar Association of California urged recognition of marriages between homosexuals even before gay rights advocates adopted the issue 7 Gary Bauer head of the socially conservative Family Research Council predicted the issue would be a major battleground in the 1990s 7 In 1991 Georgia Attorney General Michael J Bowers who had previously been the defendant in a failed Supreme Court challenge to a law that criminalized homosexuality withdrew a job offer to a lesbian who planned to marry another woman in a Jewish wedding ceremony 8 In 1993 a committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America released a report asking Lutherans to consider blessing same sex marriages and stating that lifelong abstinence was harmful to same sex couples The Conference of Bishops responded There is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship 9 In a critique of radicalism in the gay liberation movement Bruce Bawer s A Place at the Table 1993 advocated the legalization of same sex marriage 10 In Baehr v Miike 1993 the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same sex marriage 11 This finding prompted concern among opponents of same sex marriage who feared that same sex marriage might become legal in Hawaii and that other states would recognize or be compelled to recognize those marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution The House Judiciary Committee s 1996 Report called for DOMA as a response to Baehr because a redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits 12 Text editThe main provisions of the act were as follows 13 Section 1 Short title This Act may be cited as the Defense of Marriage Act Section 2 Powers reserved to the states No State territory or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any public act record or judicial proceeding of any other State territory possession or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State territory possession or tribe or a right or claim arising from such relationship Section 3 Definition of marriage In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress or of any ruling regulation or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife Enactment and role of President Clinton editGeorgia Representative Bob Barr then a Republican authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the House of Representatives on May 7 1996 Senator Don Nickles R Oklahoma introduced the bill in the Senate 14 The House Judiciary Committee stated that the Act was intended by Congress to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality 15 The Act s congressional sponsors stated T he bill amends the U S Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex 16 nbsp Pat Schroeder arguing against DOMA in the House of RepresentativesNickles said If some state wishes to recognize same sex marriage they can do so He said the bill would ensure that the 49 other states don t have to and the Federal Government does not have to 14 In opposition to the bill Colorado Rep Patricia Schroeder said You can t amend the Constitution with a statute Everybody knows that This is just stirring the political waters and seeing what hate you can unleash 14 Barr countered that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution grants Congress power to determine the effect of the obligation of each state to grant full faith and credit to other states acts 14 The 1996 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA referencing only Section 2 of the act We reject the distortion of anti discrimination laws to cover sexual preference and we endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent states from being forced to recognize same sex unions 17 The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or same sex marriage 18 In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate Clinton said I remain opposed to same sex marriage I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman This has been my long standing position and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered 19 However he also criticized DOMA as unnecessary and divisive 20 The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican controlled Congress On July 12 1996 with only 65 Democrats and then Rep Bernie Sanders I VT and Rep Steve Gunderson R WI in opposition 342 members of the U S House of Representatives 224 Republicans and 118 Democrats voted to pass DOMA 21 22 On September 10 1996 84 Senators a majority of the Democratic Senators including Joe Biden 23 and all of the Republicans voted in favor of DOMA 24 25 Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 with Pryor of Arkansas absent and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65 with 15 not participating All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican Congressman Rep Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin 25 26 After Congress had passed DOMA with veto proof majorities in both houses 27 Clinton signed the bill into law on September 21 1996 28 29 late at night behind closed doors 30 Clinton who was traveling when Congress acted signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington D C 31 no signing ceremony was held for DOMA and no photographs were taken of Clinton signing it 32 The White House released a statement in which Clinton said that the enactment of this legislation should not despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation 31 In 2013 Mike McCurry the White House press secretary at the time recalled that Clinton s posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996 27 James Hormel who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U S Ambassador described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger 33 Following the signing of DOMA Clinton s public position on same sex marriage shifted He spoke out against the passage of California s Proposition 8 and recorded robocalls urging Californians to vote against it 34 In July 2009 he came out in support of same sex marriage 35 36 Years later Clinton claimed that he signed DOMA reluctantly in view of the veto proof congressional majorities in support of the bill and that he did so to avoid associating himself politically with the then unpopular cause of same sex marriage and to defuse momentum for a proposed amendment to the U S Constitution banning same sex marriage 27 37 38 39 Even so later the same year Clinton ran ads on Christian radio stations nationwide promoting his signing of the legislation 40 The ads were pulled after massive blowback from LGBT groups 41 Clinton s explanation for signing DOMA has been disputed by gay rights activists Elizabeth Birch 42 and Evan Wolfson 43 Impact editThe General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying 1 049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits rights and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor 44 In updating its report in 2004 the GAO found that this number had risen to 1 138 as of December 31 2003 45 With respect to Social Security housing and food stamps the GAO found that recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program s The report also noted several other major program categories that were affected veterans benefits including pensions and survivor benefits taxes on income estates gifts and property sales and benefits due federal employees both civilian and military and identified specifics such as the rights of the surviving spouse of a creator of copyrighted work and the financial disclosure requirements of spouses of Congress members and certain officers of the federal government Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses Financial aid to family farms for example is restricted to those in which a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood 44 Because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA controls most employee benefits provided by private employers DOMA removed some tax breaks for employers and employees in the private sector when it comes to health care pension and disability benefits to same sex spouses on an equal footing with opposite sex spouses ERISA does not affect employees of state and local government or churches nor does it extend to such benefits as employee leave and vacation 46 Under DOMA persons in same sex marriages were not considered married for immigration purposes U S citizens and permanent residents in same sex marriages could not petition for their spouses nor could they be accompanied by their spouses into the U S on the basis of a family or employment based visa A non citizen in such a marriage could not use it as the basis for obtaining a waiver or relief from removal from the U S 47 Following the end of the U S military s ban on service by open gays and lesbians Don t ask don t tell in September 2011 Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted that DOMA limited the military s ability to extend the same benefits to military personnel in same sex marriages as their peers in opposite sex marriages received notably health benefits 48 Same sex spouses of military personnel were denied the same access to military bases legal counseling and housing allowances provided to different sex spouses 49 Political debate editThe 2000 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA in general terms and indicated concern about judicial activism We support the traditional definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages 50 The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage in this context 51 Bush administration edit In 2004 President George W Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples because he found DOMA to be vulnerable After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity 52 In January 2005 however he said he would not lobby on its behalf since too many U S senators thought DOMA would not survive a constitutional challenge 53 Obama administration edit President Barack Obama s 2008 political platform endorsed the repeal of DOMA 54 55 On June 12 2009 the Justice Department issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v United States continuing its longstanding practice of defending all federal laws challenged in court 56 On June 15 2009 Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese wrote an open letter to Obama that asked for actions to balance the DOJ s courtroom position We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress 57 A representative of Lambda Legal an LGBT impact litigation and advocacy organization noted that the Obama administration s legal arguments omitted the Bush administration s assertion that households headed by opposite sex spouses were better at raising children than those headed by same sex spouses 56 On February 23 2011 Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3 He wrote 58 After careful consideration including a review of my recommendation the President has concluded that given a number of factors including a documented history of discrimination classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to legally married same sex couples fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional Given that conclusion the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases He also announced that although it was no longer defending Section 3 in court the administration intended to continue to enforce the law unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law s constitutionality 58 In a separate letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner Holder noted that Congress could participate in these lawsuits 59 On February 24 the Department of Justice notified the First Circuit Court of Appeals that it would cease to defend Gill and Massachusetts as well 60 On July 1 2011 the DOJ with a filing in Golinski intervened for the first time on behalf of a plaintiff seeking to have DOMA Section 3 ruled unconstitutional arguing that laws that use sexual orientation as a classification need to pass the court s intermediate scrutiny standard of review 61 The DOJ made similar arguments in a filing in Gill on July 7 62 In June 2012 filing an amicus brief in Golinski two former Republican Attorneys General Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft called the DOJ s decision not to defend DOMA Section 3 an unprecedented and ill advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice and an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm 63 Congressional intervention edit On March 4 2011 Boehner announced that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group BLAG would convene to consider whether the House of Representatives should defend DOMA Section 3 in place of the Department of Justice 64 65 and on March 9 the committee voted 3 2 to do so 66 On April 18 2011 House leaders announced the selection of former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to represent BLAG 67 Clement without opposition from other parties to the case filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the suit for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III of DOMA 68 69 On April 25 2011 King amp Spalding the law firm through which Clement was handling the case announced it was dropping the case On the same day Clement resigned from King amp Spalding in protest and joined Bancroft PLLC which took on the case 70 The House s initial contract with Clement capped legal fees at 500 000 71 but on September 30 a revised contract raised the cap to 1 5 million 72 A spokesman for Boehner explained that BLAG would not appeal in all cases citing bankruptcy cases that are unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court E ffectively defending DOMA does not require the House to intervene in every case especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive 73 Challenges to Section 3 in Federal court editNumerous plaintiffs have challenged DOMA Prior to 2009 all federal courts upheld DOMA in its entirety Later cases focused on Section 3 s definition of marriage The courts using different standards have all found Section 3 unconstitutional Requests for the Supreme Court to hear appeals were filed in five cases listed below with Supreme Court docket numbers Gill v Office of Personnel Management 12 13 as BLAG v Gill Massachusetts v United States Department of Health and Human Services 12 15 as Dept of HHS v Massachusetts 12 97 Golinski v Office of Personnel Management 12 16 OPM v Golinski Windsor v United States 12 63 Pedersen v Office of Personnel Management 12 231 Golinski v Office of Personnel Management edit Golinski v Office of Personnel Management was a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA in federal court based on a judicial employee s attempt to receive spousal health benefits for her partner In 2008 Karen Golinski a 19 year employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied for health benefits for her wife When the application was denied she filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit s Employment Dispute Resolution Plan Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in his administrative capacity ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits 74 but the Office of Personnel Management OPM announced that it would not comply with the ruling On March 17 2011 U S District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the suit on procedural grounds but invited Golinski to amend her suit to argue the unconstitutionality of DOMA Section 3 75 which she did on April 14 76 Following the Attorney General s decision to no longer defend DOMA 58 the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group BLAG an arm of the House of Representatives took up the defense Former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement filed on BLAG s behalf a motion to dismiss raising arguments previously avoided by the Department of Justice that DOMA s definition of marriage is valid because only a man and a woman can beget a child together and because historical experience has shown that a family consisting of a married father and mother is an effective social structure for raising children 77 78 On July 1 2011 the DOJ filed a brief in support of Golinski s suit in which it detailed for the first time its case for heightened scrutiny based on a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people by governmental as well as private entities and its arguments that DOMA Section 3 fails to meet that standard 61 79 On February 22 2012 White ruled for Golinski finding DOMA violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution He wrote that Section 3 of DOMA could not pass the heightened scrutiny or the rational basis test He wrote 80 The Court finds that neither Congress claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests Further after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested the Court having tried on its own cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further While the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on July 3 2012 the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Ninth Circuit decides it so it can be heard together with two other cases in which DOMA Section 3 was held unconstitutional Gill v Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v United States Department of Health and Human Services 81 The Supreme Court chose to hear Windsor instead of these cases and following the Supreme Court decision in Windsor the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in Golinski with the consent of all parties on July 23 82 Gill and Massachusetts edit On March 3 2009 GLAD filed a federal court challenge Gill v Office of Personnel Management based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government s consistent deference to each state s definition of marriage prior to the enactment of DOMA The case questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman 83 84 On May 6 2010 Judge Joseph L Tauro heard arguments in the U S District Court in Boston 85 On July 8 2009 Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a suit Massachusetts v United States Department of Health and Human Services challenging the constitutionality of DOMA The suit claims that Congress overstepped its authority undermined states efforts to recognize marriages between same sex couples and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people 86 Tauro the judge also handling Gill heard arguments on May 26 2010 87 On July 8 2010 Tauro issued his rulings in both Gill and Massachusetts granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs in both cases 88 89 He found in Gill that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U S Constitution In Massachusetts he held that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution 90 91 Those decisions were stayed after the DOJ filed an appeal on October 12 2010 92 On November 3 2011 133 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Gill and Massachusetts asserting their belief that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional 93 Included among the members of Congress signing the brief were 14 members who had voted for the bill in 1996 93 Seventy major employers also filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs 94 A three judge panel heard arguments in the case on April 4 2012 during which the DOJ for the first time took the position that it could not defend Section 3 of DOMA under any level of scrutiny 95 On May 31 2012 the panel unanimously affirmed Tauro s ruling finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional 96 97 On June 29 BLAG filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court 98 The DOJ did so on July 3 while asking the Supreme Court to review Golinski as well 81 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a response to both petitions adding the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment issues as questions presented n 3 The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27 2013 following its decision in Windsor United States v Windsor edit Main article United States v Windsor On November 9 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union filed United States v Windsor in New York on behalf of a surviving same sex spouse whose inheritance from her deceased spouse had been subject to federal taxation as if they were unmarried 99 100 New York is part of the Second Circuit where no precedent exists for the standard of review to be followed in sexual orientation discrimination cases New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a brief supporting Windsor s claim on July 26 2011 101 nbsp Same sex couple celebrating legal victory at San Francisco Pride 2013On June 6 2012 Judge Barbara Jones ruled that based on rational basis review Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the requested tax refund be paid to Windsor The plaintiff commented It s thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers 102 Windsor s attorneys filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 16 asking for the case to be considered without waiting for the Second Circuit s review 103 On October 18 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court s ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional 104 105 According to an ACLU press release this ruling was the first federal appeals court decision to decide that government discrimination against gay people gets a more exacting level of judicial review 106 In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated 107 Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition but law federal or state is not concerned with holy matrimony Government deals with marriage as a civil status however fundamental and New York has elected to extend that status to same sex couples On December 7 2012 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Oral arguments were heard on March 27 2013 108 In a 5 4 decision on June 26 2013 the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional declaring it a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment 1 25 On July 18 2013 the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group BLAG which had mounted a defense of Section 3 when the administration declined to acknowledged that in Windsor t he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3 s constitutionality and said it no longer will defend that statute 109 Pedersen v Office of Personnel Management edit 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 110 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 111 112 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 113 The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27 2013 following its decision in Windsor Other cases edit Other cases that challenged DOMA include 114 Dragovich v Department of the Treasury No 10 1564 N D Cal a class action in which California same sex couples seek equal access to California s long term care insurance program for public employees and their families U S District Court Judge Claudia Wilken on May 24 2012 found Section 3 of DOMA and certain IRS regulations violated the plaintiffs equal protection rights 115 Hara v Office of Personnel Management No 09 3134 Fed Cir Hara is one of the plaintiffs in Gill Torres Barragan v Holder No 10 55768 9th Cir An immigration related DOMA challenge in which the district court rejected the constitutional challenges 116 Cozen O Connor v Tobits No 11 00045 CDJ Pennsylvania in which two parties dispute who inherits the proceeds of a law firm s profit sharing plan under ERISA and DOMA The DOJ filed a brief arguing the unconstitutionality of DOMA 117 Following the decision in Windsor Judge C Darnell Jones II ruled that the widow qualified as the deceased s spouse since Illinois their state of domicile recognized them as spouses in a civil union as defined by Illinois 118 The deceased s parents dropped their appeal on August 30 119 On April 5 2012 Chief Judge James Ware of the U S District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the federal court clerk to reimburse Christopher Nathan a court employee for the costs of health insurance coverage for his same sex spouse comparable to that denied him by Section 3 of DOMA 120 On November 21 2012 the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference affirmed Ware s decision and ordered the court to determine the amount due Nathan and pay him within 10 days 121 Military and veterans cases edit On October 13 2011 Carmen Cardona a U S Navy veteran filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims seeking disability benefits for her wife that the Veterans Administration and the Board of Veterans Appeals had denied 122 Cardona was represented by the Yale Law School Legal Services Clinic 123 At the request of BLAG which defended the government s action and over Cardona s objections the court postponed oral argument in Cardona v Shinseki pending the Supreme Court s disposition of writs of certiorari in other DOMA cases 124 On October 27 2011 the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network SLDN brought suit in federal court on behalf of several military servicemembers and veterans in same sex marriages In a November 21 filing in the case of McLaughlin v Panetta they wrote Any claim that DOMA as applied to military spousal benefits survives rational basis review is strained because paying unequal benefits to service members runs directly counter to the military values of uniformity fairness and unit cohesion The benefits at issue include medical and dental benefits basic housing and transportation allowances family separation benefits visitation rights in military hospitals and survivor benefit plans 125 The case was assigned to Judge Richard G Stearns One of the plaintiffs in the case lesbian Charlie Morgan who was undergoing chemotherapy met with an assistant to Boehner on February 9 2012 to ask him to consider not defending DOMA 126 The case is on hold at the request of both sides in anticipation of the outcome of two other First Circuit cases on appeal Gill v Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v United States Department of Health and Human Services 127 On February 17 the DOJ announced it could not defend the constitutionality of the statutes challenged in the case 128 In May 2012 the parties filed briefs arguing whether BLAG has a right to intervene 129 On June 27 Stearns asked the parties to explain by July 18 why given the decision in Windsor he should not find for the plaintiffs 130 On July 18 BLAG s response acknowledged that t he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3 s constitutionality and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case It took no position on the two statutes at issue in the case which define a spouse as a person of the opposite sex except to say that the question of whether that definition is constitutional remains open 131 Tracey Cooper Harris an Army veteran from California sued the Veterans Administration and the DOJ in federal court on February 1 2012 asking for her wife to receive the benefits normally granted to spouses of disabled veterans 132 BLAG sought a delay in Cooper Harris v United States pending the resolution of Golinski which the attorneys for Cooper Harris the Southern Poverty Law Center opposed The court denied BLAG s motion on August 4 133 In February 2013 Judge Consuelo Marshall rejected the DOJ s argument that the case could only be heard by the Board of Veterans Appeals and allowed the case to proceed 134 BLAG asked to withdraw from the lawsuit on July 22 135 Bankruptcy court edit In May 2011 DOMA based challenges by the Department of Justice to joint petitions for bankruptcy by married same sex couples were denied in two cases one in the Southern District of New York on May 4 and one in the Eastern District of California on May 31 Both rulings stressed practical considerations and avoided ruling on DOMA 136 137 On June 13 2011 20 of the 25 judges of the U S Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California signed an opinion in the case in re Balas and Morales that found that a same sex married couple filing for bankruptcy have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled The decision found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and dismissed BLAG s objections to the joint filing 138 139 Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case To do so violates the Debtors right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors A spokesman for House Speaker Boehner said BLAG would not appeal the ruling 140 On July 7 2011 the DOJ announced that after consultation with BLAG it would no longer raise objections to bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same sex couples who are married under state law 141 Immigration cases edit Bi national same sex couples were kept from legally living in the United States by DOMA s Section 3 which prevented one spouse from sponsoring the other for a green card 142 Following some uncertainty after the Obama Administration determined Section 3 to be unconstitutional the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services USCIS reaffirmed its policy of denying such applications 143 With respect to obtaining a visitor s visa Bureau rules treated bi national same sex spouses the same as bi national opposite sex unmarried partners under the classification cohabiting partners 144 Tim Coco and Genesio J Oliveira a same sex couple married in Massachusetts in 2005 successfully challenged this policy and developed a model since followed by other immigration activists 145 The U S refused to recognize their marriage and in 2007 Oliveira a Brazilian national accepted voluntary departure and returned to Brazil They conducted a national press campaign 146 A Boston Globe editorial commented Great strides toward equality for gays have been made in this country but the woeful fate of Tim Coco and Genesio Oliveira shows that thousands of same sex couples even in Massachusetts still aren t really full citizens 147 The editorial gained the attention of Senator John F Kerry who first lobbied Attorney General Eric Holder without success 148 He then gained the support of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who granted Oliveira humanitarian parole enabling the couple to reunite in the U S in June 2010 149 Humanitarian parole is granted on a case by case basis at the Secretary s discretion 150 On September 28 2011 in Lui v Holder U S District Court Judge Stephen V Wilson rejected a challenge to DOMA citing Adams v Howerton 1982 151 The plaintiffs in that case had unsuccessfully challenged the denial of immediate relative status to the same sex spouse of an American citizen 152 153 Early in 2012 two bi national same sex couples were granted deferred action status suspending deportation proceedings against the non U S citizen for a year 154 155 A similar Texas couple had a deportation case dismissed in March 2012 leaving the non citizen spouse unable to work legally in the United States but no longer subject to the threat of deportation 156 On January 5 2012 the U S District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago decided the suit of a same sex binational couple Demos Revelis and Marcel Maas married in Iowa in 2010 sought to prevent the USCIS from applying Section 3 of DOMA to Revelis s application for a permanent residence visa for Maas and in the court s words that their petition be reviewed and decided on the same basis as other married couples 157 Judge Harry D Leinenweber a Reagan appointee denied the government s motion to dismiss BLAG has argued for the suit to be dismissed 158 In July the court stayed proceedings until mid October because the USCIS was considering denying the plaintiffs request on grounds unrelated to DOMA 159 On April 2 2012 five bi national same sex couples represented by Immigration Equality and Paul Weiss filed a lawsuit Blesch v Holder in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming that Section 3 of DOMA violated their equal protection rights by denying the U S citizen in the relationship the same rights in the green card application process granted a U S citizen who is in a relationship of partners of the opposite sex 158 On July 25 Chief Judge Carol Amon stayed the case pending the resolution of Windsor by the Second Circuit 160 Immigration rights advocate Lavi Soloway reported on June 19 2012 that the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA had in four cases responded to green card denials on the part of the U S Citizenship and Immigration Services USCIS by asking the USCIS to document the marital status of the same sex couples and determine whether the foreign national would qualify for a green card in the absence of DOMA Section 3 He said the BIA is essentially setting the stage for being able to approve the petitions in a post DOMA universe 161 On April 19 2013 U S District Judge Consuelo Marshall ordered that a suit brought in July 2012 by Jane DeLeon a Philippine citizen and her spouse Irma Rodriguez a U S citizen could proceed as a class action The plaintiffs represented by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law contended that DeLeon was denied a residency waiver because of DOMA Section 3 162 163 On June 28 2013 the USCIS notified U S citizen Julian Marsh that it had approved the green card petition for his Bulgarian husband Traian Popov Both are residents of Florida 164 On July 3 the USCIS office in Centennial Colorado granted Cathy Davis a citizen of Ireland a green card based on her marriage to U S citizen Catriona Dowling 165 Tribunals edit In 2009 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt declared DOMA unconstitutional in in re Levenson an employment dispute resolution tribunal case where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson 166 167 As an employee of the federal judiciary Levenson is prohibited from suing his employer in federal court Rather employment disputes are handled at employment dispute resolution tribunals in which a federal judge hears the dispute in their capacity as a dispute resolution official Challenges to Section 2 in federal court editSection 2 of DOMA states to give legal relief to any state from recognizing same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions Section 2 posits a conflict between states rights and civil rights Various federal lawsuits some filed alongside challenges to Section 3 have challenged Section 2 In re Kandu A same sex couple in the state of Washington who had married in Canada attempted to file a joint bankruptcy petition but were not allowed to do so 168 169 Wilson v Ake an unsuccessful attempt by a Florida same sex couple married in Massachusetts to have their marriage license accepted in Florida n 4 Smelt v Orange County and Smelt v United States In February 2004 Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer sued Orange County California in federal court for refusing to issue them a marriage license The district court ruled that the couple did not have standing to challenge Section 2 of DOMA and rejected their challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 On May 5 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit 171 and on October 10 the United States Supreme Court refused to consider the couple s appeal 172 On March 9 2009 the same couple having legally married in California filed Smelt v United States challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California s Proposition 8 173 District Judge David O Carter dismissed the case on August 24 because the couple had not applied for and been denied any federal benefit and therefore lacked an injury in fact 174 Bishop v United States Two lesbian couples in Oklahoma one of which couples sought a marriage license and the other to have the state recognize either their Canadian marriage or their Vermont civil union 175 176 The court stayed consideration of the case pending the outcome of Windsor Later it ruled the couple challenging Section 2 did not have standing but ruled Oklahoma s same sex marriage ban unconstitutional under Bishop v Oklahoma Obergefell v Hodges edit 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 177 This left Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable Repeal editFurther information Respect for Marriage Act On September 15 2009 three Democratic members of Congress Jerrold Nadler of New York Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jared Polis of Colorado introduced legislation to repeal DOMA called the Respect for Marriage Act The bill had 91 original co sponsors in the House of Representatives 178 179 and was supported by Clinton Barr and several legislators who voted for DOMA 180 Congressman Barney Frank and John Berry head of the Office of Personnel Management did not support that effort stating that the backbone is not there in Congress Frank and Berry suggested DOMA could be overturned more quickly through lawsuits such as Gill v Office of Personnel Management filed by Gay amp Lesbian Advocates amp Defenders GLAD 181 182 Following Holder s announcement that the Obama Administration would no longer defend DOMA Section 3 in court on March 16 2011 Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate again 183 and Nadler introduced it in the House 184 The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 8 in favor of advancing the bill to the Senate floor but observers believed it would not gain the 60 votes needed to end debate and bring it to a vote 185 After the Supreme Court struck down DOMA Section 3 on June 26 2013 Feinstein and Nadler reintroduced the Respect for Marriage Act as S 1236 and H R 2523 The Respect for Marriage Act cleared the 60 vote filibuster hurdle on November 16 2022 when the Senate voted 62 37 to advance it 186 Joe Biden signed the repeal on December 13 2022 See also editLGBT rights in the United States Marriage Protection Act 2004 Same sex unions in the United States Respect for Marriage Act 2022 Explanatory notes edit For a review of the play see Barnes Clive December 10 1971 Nightride No Apologies and No Regrets PDF The New York Times Archived PDF from the original on October 12 2019 Retrieved February 7 2012 For the theological background beginning in 1967 see Fiske Edward B December 3 1967 Views on Homosexuals PDF The New York Times Archived PDF from the original on October 12 2019 Retrieved February 7 2012 The Commonwealth also filed its own petition in Massachusetts in case the court found the response was not the proper way to raise those issues The court held that in enacting Section 2 of DOMA Congress actions are an appropriate exercise of its power to regulate conflicts between the laws of two different States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause 170 Citations edit a b Supreme Court of the United States June 26 2015 United States v Windsor PDF supremecourt gov Archived PDF from the original on July 2 2013 Schott Webster November 12 1967 Civil Rights and the Homosexual A 4 Million Minority Asks for Equal Rights PDF The New York Times Archived PDF from the original on October 12 2019 Retrieved March 28 2012 Homosexual Wins Fight to Take Bar Examination in Minnesota PDF The New York Times January 7 1973 Archived PDF from the original on October 12 2019 Retrieved February 6 2012 a b Geidner Chris May 4 2011 Domestic Disturbance Metro Weekly Retrieved February 10 2012 Barton Lee pseudonym January 23 1973 Why Do Homosexual Playwrights Hide their Homosexuality PDF The New York Times Archived PDF from the original on October 12 2019 Retrieved February 7 2012 Sheppard Nathaniel September 17 1979 Panel bids Episcopalians Bar Homosexual priests PDF The New York Times Retrieved February 7 2012 a b c d e Gutis Philip S November 5 1989 Small Steps Toward Acceptance Renew Debate on Gay Marriage The New York Times Retrieved February 6 2012 Georgia Denies Gay Lawyer a Job The New York Times October 6 1991 Retrieved February 7 2012 Lewin Tamar October 21 1993 Lutherans Asked to Decide On Blessing of Gay Unions The New York Times Retrieved February 7 2012 Lehmann Haupt Christopher November 11 1993 A Strong Gay Dissent On Public Spectacles The New York Times Retrieved February 7 2012 The case was originally Baehr v Lewin State of Hawaii Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law Chapter 2 Footnotes State of Hawaii 1995 Archived from the original on September 29 2000 Retrieved January 18 2009 United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary July 9 1996 Report 104 664 Defense of Marriage Act PDF pp 4 11 Archived PDF from the original on June 1 2009 Retrieved August 15 2013 Defense of Marriage Act United States Government Printing Office September 21 1996 Retrieved January 18 2009 a b c d Dunlap David W May 9 1996 Congressional Bills Withhold Sanction of Same Sex Unions The New York Times Retrieved February 10 2012 Goodwin Liz March 27 2013 Lawmakers moral disapproval of gay people in 1996 could doom DOMA law in Supreme Court Yahoo News Retrieved April 23 2013 Stewart Chuck 2018 Documents of the LGBT movement Santa Barbara California ABC CLIO p 149 ISBN 9781440855023 Republican Party Platform of 1996 American Presidency Project August 12 1996 Retrieved July 15 2010 Democratic Party Platform of 1996 American Presidency Project August 26 1996 Retrieved December 4 2017 Frumin Aliyah Timeline Bill Clinton s evolution on gay rights MSNBC NBC News Digital Retrieved October 16 2021 Issenberg Sasha September 18 2021 Bill Clinton Tried to Avoid the DOMA Trap Republicans Set Instead He Trapped Himself POLITICO Final vote results for roll call 316 United States House of Representatives July 12 1996 Retrieved January 18 2009 Geidner Chris July 13 2011 Marriage Wars Metro Weekly Retrieved October 28 2015 Liptak Kevin Lee MJ Klein Betsy December 13 2022 Biden signs into law same sex marriage bill 10 years after his famous Sunday show answer on the issue CNN Politics Retrieved December 13 2022 On Passage of the Bill H R 3396 United States Senate September 10 1996 Retrieved January 18 2009 a b Geidner Chris September 14 2011 Double Defeat Metro Weekly Retrieved October 28 2015 Geidner Chris July 14 2011 Marriage Wars Metro Weekly Retrieved February 10 2012 a b c Baker Peter March 25 2013 Now in Defense of Gay Marriage Bill Clinton The New York Times Retrieved June 2 2013 Call James A horrible law Florida lawmakers seek repeal of defunct ban on same sex marriage Tallahassee Democrat Geidner Chris October 30 2015 There s No Evidence In Clinton White House Documents For Clintons Story On Anti Gay Law BuzzFeed News Stern Mark Joseph October 26 2015 Bill Clinton Signed DOMA for Terrible Reasons It Was Still the Right Thing to Do via slate com a b Geidner Chris September 29 2011 Becoming Law Metro Weekly Retrieved February 10 2012 Collins David August 17 2017 Accidental Activists Mark Phariss Vic Holmes and Their Fight for Marriage Denton Texas University of North Texas Press p 74 ISBN 9781574417036 Retrieved November 29 2022 David Perry interviews Ambassador James C Hormel on his new book Youtube com Bill Clinton on Prop 8 It s Unfair and It s Wrong Queerty Galloway Jim July 14 2009 Bill Clinton drops opposition to same sex marriage The Atlanta Journal Constitution Archived from the original on July 18 2009 Tracey Michael July 14 2009 Bill Clinton Backs Same Sex Marriage The Nation Clinton Bill March 7 2013 It s time to overturn DOMA The Washington Post Bill Clinton s Justifications for Signing DOMA New York Magazine February 26 2012 Retrieved October 28 2015 Johnson Chris October 25 2015 Gay activists unhappy with Clinton remarks on DOMA Washington Blade Retrieved October 28 2015 Kaczynski Andrew October 10 2016 Listen to Bill Clinton s 1996 radio ad touting his passage of DOMA CNN Retrieved January 22 2020 Kaczynski Andrew October 10 2016 Listen to Bill Clinton s 1996 radio ad touting his passage of DOMA CNN Politics CNN Retrieved December 5 2022 Birch Elizabeth March 12 2013 President Clinton is wrong about the history of DOMA AMERICAblog News Archived from the original on September 8 2015 Retrieved October 28 2015 Geidner Chris September 29 2011 Becoming Law Metro Weekly Retrieved October 28 2015 a b OGC 97 16 Defense of Marriage Act PDF General Accounting Office January 31 1997 Archived PDF from the original on May 5 2012 Retrieved February 12 2012 GAO 04 353R Defense of Marriage Act Update to Prior Report PDF General Accounting Office January 23 2004 Archived PDF from the original on April 11 2004 Retrieved February 12 2012 Providing benefits to same sex spouses of employees Legal issues best practices ABA Journal America Bar Association December 2011 Retrieved February 12 2012 Immigration and the Defense of Marriage Act DOMA A Q amp A Fact Check Immigration Policy Center August 18 2011 Archived from the original on September 20 2012 Retrieved February 12 2012 Heller Marc September 21 2011 Gillibrand Urges Equal Benefits Daily Courier Observer Archived from the original on January 29 2013 Retrieved February 12 2012 Dao James July 16 2011 Same Sex Marriage Faces Military Limits The New York Times Retrieved February 12 2012 Democratic Party Platform of 2000 American Presidency Project July 31 2000 Retrieved July 15 2010 Democratic Party Platform of 1996 American Presidency Project August 14 2000 Retrieved July 15 2010 Bush calls for ban on same sex marriages CNN February 25 2004 Retrieved February 8 2012 Hoffecker Leslie January 17 2005 Bush Won t Lobby For Amendment Orlando Sentinel Archived from the original on January 15 2013 Retrieved February 8 2012 Barack Obama on LGBT Rights PDF Archived from the original PDF on December 17 2008 Open Letter from Barack Obama Concerning LGBT Equality Archived from the original on May 8 2009 Retrieved May 7 2009 a b Obama Admin Moves To Dismiss Defense Of Marriage Act Challenge Huffington Post June 12 2009 Archived from the original on June 14 2009 Retrieved June 12 2009 a href Template Cite news html title Template Cite news cite news a CS1 maint unfit URL link Solmonese Joe June 15 2009 Open Letter to President Obama PDF Human Rights Campaign Archived from the original PDF on October 17 2009 Retrieved September 7 2009 a b c Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act February 23 2011 Retrieved July 5 2012 Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act February 23 2011 Retrieved June 26 2015 Letter of Tony West Assistant Attorney General to United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit PDF GLAD February 24 2011 Archived from the original PDF on July 24 2011 Retrieved February 28 2011 a b Geidner Chris July 1 2011 DOJ Court Should Not Dismiss Karen Golinski s Health Benefits Claim Should Instead Find DOMA Unconstitutional Metro Weekly Archived from the original on July 3 2011 Retrieved July 2 2011 DOJ Support of Petition for En Banc Review PDF GLAD July 7 2011 Archived from the original PDF on August 3 2011 Retrieved July 12 2011 Geidner Chris June 11 2012 Former AGs Meese Ashcroft Call Obama Move on DOMA Extreme in Appeals Court Filing Metro Weekly Archived from the original on June 17 2012 Retrieved June 12 2012 Boehner House Will Defend DOMA Courts Not Obama Should Decide National Public Radio March 4 2011 Retrieved March 4 2011 Boehner Launches Effort to Defend Gay Marriage Ban FOX News March 4 2011 Retrieved February 8 2012 Sonmez Felicia March 9 2011 House to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court The Washington Post Todd Ross April 18 2012 King amp Spalding s Clement to Fight Against Same Sex Marriage AmLawDaily Retrieved February 8 2012 Geidner Chris April 18 2011 House Leadership Seeks to Intervene in DOMA Case Metro Weekly Archived from the original on April 25 2011 Retrieved April 19 2011 Windsor v United States Unopposed Motion of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U S House of Representatives to Intervene for a Limited Purpose Archived September 20 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved April 19 2011 Berman Russell Strauss Daniel April 25 2011 GOP pushes on with marriage act defense after law firm backs out The Hill Washington D C ISSN 1521 1568 OCLC 31153202 Retrieved November 13 2011 Price tag on House defense of DOMA 500k MSNBC April 20 2011 Archived from the original on April 23 2011 Retrieved April 27 2011 Sonmez Felicia October 4 2011 House raises salary cap for DOMA lawyer to 1 5 million The Washington Post Schwartz John June 14 2011 A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U S Law Barring Same Sex Marriage The New York Times Retrieved February 13 2012 Pear Robert March 12 2009 Obama on Spot Over a Benefit to Gay Couples The New York Times Retrieved March 1 2011 Levine Dan March 16 2011 Lesbian U S employee set back in benefits fight Reuters Retrieved March 17 2011 Golinski v OPM Second Amended Complaint April 14 2011 Retrieved June 8 2011 Geidner Chris June 10 2011 House GOP Leadership Defends Traditional Marriage From Being Radically Redefined Metro Weekly Archived from the original on June 12 2011 Retrieved June 13 2011 Golinski v OPM Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U S House of Representatives Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint Archived May 7 2012 at the Wayback Machine June 3 2011 Retrieved July 4 2012 Golinski v OPM Defendants Brief in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss Archived May 7 2012 at the Wayback Machine July 1 2011 Retrieved July 2 2011 Geidner Chris February 22 2012 DOMA s Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional Judge Rules in Golinski Case Metro Weekly Archived from the original on February 23 2012 Retrieved February 22 2012 a b Geidner Chris July 3 2012 DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional Metro Weekly Archived from the original on July 4 2012 Retrieved July 3 2012 Order Golinski v Office of Personnel Management Lambda Legal Retrieved July 23 2013 Goodnough Abby Zezima Katie March 2 2009 Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same Sex Couples The New York Times Retrieved November 6 2009 DOMA Means Federal Discrimination Against Married Same Sex Couples GLAD Archived from the original on March 6 2009 Seelye Katharine Q May 6 2010 Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination The New York Times Retrieved June 5 2010 Finucane Martin July 8 2009 Mass challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act The Boston Globe Retrieved November 6 2009 Massachusetts challenges Marriage Act UPI May 26 2010 Retrieved June 28 2013 Gill v Office of Personnel Management 699 F Supp 2d 374 D Mass 2010 Retrieved February 10 2012 Massachusetts v United States Department of Health and Human Services 698 F Supp 2d 234 D Mass 2010 Retrieved February 10 2012 Geidner Chris July 8 2010 Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec 3 Violates Equal Protection Archived from the original on July 12 2010 Retrieved July 8 2010 DOMA decisions released Bay Windows July 8 2010 Lavoie Denise October 12 2010 Feds Appeal Mass Rulings against U S Marriage Law The Boston Globe Retrieved October 13 2010 a b Mackenzie Weinger November 3 2011 DOMA opposed by 133 House Democrats Politico Retrieved November 3 2011 Reilly Peter J November 4 2011 Seventy Major Employers Line Up Against DOMA Forbes Geidner Chris April 4 2012 Federal Appeals Judges Consider Whether DOMA Is Constitutional in Historic Hearing in Boston Metro Weekly Archived from the original on April 5 2012 Retrieved April 4 2012 Jeffrey Don Dolmetsch Chris May 31 2012 Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional Appeals Court Says Bloomberg Retrieved July 5 2012 Massachusetts v United States Department of Health and Human Services Archived June 1 2012 at the Wayback Machine No 10 2204 slip op May 31 2012 Johnson Chris June 20 2012 Boehner appeals DOMA cases to Supreme Court Washington Blade Retrieved June 29 2012 Schwartz John November 8 2010 Gay Couples to Sue Over U S Marriage Law The New York Times Retrieved February 23 2011 Andrew M Harris February 28 2011 Widow s 363 000 Tax Bill Led to Obama Shift on Marriage Act Bloomberg Businessweek Retrieved July 31 2011 Geidner Chris July 26 2011 New York Attorney General Takes Edith Windsor s Side in DOMA Challenge Metro Weekly Archived from the original on August 6 2011 Retrieved July 27 2011 Geidner Chris June 6 2012 Another Federal Judge Finds DOMA Marriage Definition Unconstitutional Now in Widow s Case Metro Weekly Archived from the original on June 7 2012 Retrieved June 6 2012 Snow Justin July 16 2012 Widow Petitions DOMA Case to the Supreme Court Metro Weekly Archived from the original on July 22 2012 Retrieved July 16 2012 Baynes Terry October 18 2012 Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act Reuters Retrieved October 18 2012 Windsor v USA PDF United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Archived from the original PDF on January 8 2013 Retrieved October 18 2012 Federal Appeals Court Declares Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional ACLU Press Release Retrieved July 25 2013 Weiss Debra Cassens October 18 2012 2nd Circuit Rules for Surviving Gay Spouse Says DOMA Violates Equal Protection Clause ABA Journal Retrieved October 18 2012 Stempel Jonathan January 7 2013 Supreme Court to hear same sex marriage cases in late March Reuters Retrieved January 7 2013 Geidner Chris July 18 2013 House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight BuzzFeed Retrieved July 18 2013 Bolcer Julie July 31 2012 Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional in Pedersen Case Retrieved July 31 2012 Geidner Chris July 31 2012 Federal Trial Court In Connecticut Strikes Down DOMA s Marriage Definition BuzzFeed Politics Retrieved July 31 2012 Geidner Ryan J July 31 2012 Bush Appointee Rules DOMA Unconstitutional Talking Points Memo Retrieved July 31 2012 Pedersen v Office of Personnel Management Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment Archived September 24 2015 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved August 21 2012 Pending cases where the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged February 28 2011 Geidner Chris May 25 2012 Federal Judge Rules DOMA Tax Code Force Unconstitutional Treatment For Same Sex Couples Metro Weekly Archived from the original on May 25 2012 Retrieved May 25 2012 Torres Barragan v Holder Civilo Rights Litigation Clearinghouse University of Michigan Law School Retrieved January 14 2013 Passarella Gina January 9 2012 U S Justice Department argues that Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional Pittsburgh Post Gazette Retrieved February 12 2012 Geidner Chris July 29 2013 Federal Judge Says DOMA Ruling Changes Private Companies Retirement Plans BuzzFeed Retrieved August 2 2013 Packel Dan August 30 2013 Late Cozen Atty s Family Drops Same Sex Benefits Fight Law 360 Retrieved August 31 2013 Egelko Bob April 5 2012 Same sex benefits denial is ruled discriminatory San Francisco Chronicle Retrieved April 5 2012 Egelko Bob November 25 2012 Same sex case ruling favors gay employee San Francisco Chronicle Retrieved November 26 2012 Dao James October 12 2011 Denied Veterans Benefits Over Same Sex Marriage Ex Sailor Challenges Law The New York Times Retrieved October 3 2012 Cardona v Shinseki Veterans Legal Services Clinic Yale Law School Retrieved October 3 2012 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Number 11 3083 accessed November 26 2012 Geidner Chris November 23 2011 SLDN Takes Aim at DOMA Metro Weekly Retrieved February 11 2012 Stone Andrea February 9 2012 Charlie Morgan Lesbian Guardsman With Cancer Meets John Boehner Staffer To Push DOMA Repeal Huffington Post Retrieved February 11 2012 Geidner Chris February 16 2012 SLDN DOJ Agree to 60 Day Delay in Case Challenging Gay Servicemembers Spousal Benefits Metro Weekly Archived from the original on February 16 2012 Retrieved February 17 2012 Geidner Chris February 17 2012 DOJ Won t Defend Laws Preventing Equal Treatment for Servicemembers With Same Sex Spouses Metro Weekly Archived from the original on February 19 2012 Retrieved February 17 2012 Boehner moves to defend anti gay DOMA in military case Wisconsin Gazette May 4 2012 Archived from the original on February 9 2013 Retrieved June 13 2012 Geidner Chris July 17 2013 House Republicans Face Decision On Fighting Gay Veterans Spousal Benefits BuzzFeed Retrieved July 17 2013 Geidner Chris July 18 2013 House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight BuzzFeed Retrieved July 18 2013 Pasadena same sex couple sues VA over benefits Pasadena Sun February 1 2012 Archived from the original on May 11 2012 Retrieved February 11 2012 Snow Justin August 3 2012 Court Denies Motion To Stay DOMA Case Proceedings Metro Weekly Archived from the original on August 6 2012 Retrieved August 3 2012 Tracey Cooper Harris Gay California Veteran Moves Forward With DOMA Lawsuit Huffington Post February 25 2013 Retrieved July 18 2013 Application to Withdraw accessed July 23 2013 Bankruptcy Judge Bypasses DOMA to Allow Joint Bankruptcy Filing by Same Sex Spouses American Bankruptcy Institute June 3 2011 Archived from the original on June 10 2011 Retrieved June 9 2011 In re Somers and Caggiano Archived September 16 2012 at the Wayback Machine 10 38296 slip op Bky S D N Y May 4 2011 Retrieved June 9 2011 Geidner Chris June 13 2011 Bankruptcy Court DOMA Unconstitutionally Limits Same Sex Married Couples From Joint Bankruptcy Filing Metro Weekly Archived from the original on June 17 2011 Retrieved June 13 2011 Bankruptcy Court rules section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional SDGLN June 13 2011 Retrieved June 13 2011 Schwartz John June 14 2011 A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U S Law Barring Same Sex Marriage The New York Times Retrieved June 16 2011 Geidner Chris July 7 2011 U S Trustee Withdraws Appeal of Gay Couple s Bankruptcy Court DOMA Victory Metro Weekly Archived from the original on July 10 2011 Retrieved July 7 2011 Wernick Allan June 10 2009 Vermont Senator urges same sex marriages OK for immigrant spouses New York Daily News Retrieved December 19 2011 Geidner Chris March 30 2011 Immigration Official The Hold Is Over Metro Weekly Archived from the original on April 1 2011 Retrieved March 30 2011 B2 Classification for Cohabiting Partners Travel state gov Archived from the original on March 26 2011 Retrieved March 28 2011 Preston Julia May 8 2011 Justice Dept to Continue Policy Against Same Sex Marriage The New York Times Retrieved August 7 2011 Mass ad exec fights two battles with ads AdWeek April 29 2008 Retrieved August 7 2011 Reunite this family Boston Globe August 27 2007 Archived from the original on June 20 2010 Retrieved August 7 2011 Trujillo Meilssa March 20 2009 Kerry Seeks Asylum For Gay Brazilian Wed In Mass Huffington Post Retrieved August 7 2011 Sacchetti Maria June 4 2010 Gay couple get a boost in winning bid to reunite The Boston Globe Retrieved August 7 2011 Bernstein Nina October 14 2005 A Contest of Suffering With the U S as a Prize The New York Times Retrieved August 7 2011 673 F 2d 1036 9th Cir 1982 Lui v Holder Archived October 10 2011 at the Wayback Machine No 2 11 CV 01267 SVW JCGx C D Cal September 28 2011 Retrieved October 4 2011 Harmon Andrew September 29 2011 Judge Throws Out Binational Couple s DOMA Lawsuit The Advocate Retrieved October 4 2011 Wong Curtis January 5 2012 Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk San Francisco Gay Married Couple Win Deportation Reprieve For Two Years Huffington Post Retrieved February 9 2012 Foley Elise February 9 2012 Same Sex Couple Wins Immigration Relief Despite Defense Of Marriage Act Huffington Post Retrieved February 9 2012 Carroll Susan March 9 2012 Gay married immigrant spared from deportation Houston Chronicle Retrieved March 10 2012 Revelis v Napolitano Archived September 16 2012 at the Wayback Machine 11 C 1991 slip op N D Ill January 5 2012 Retrieved March 2 2012 a b Geidner Chris April 2 2012 Immigration Equality Files DOMA Challenge Obama Administration Left Them No Choice Metro Weekly Archived from the original on April 6 2012 Retrieved April 2 2012 Revelis v Napolitano granting motion to stay Archived September 16 2012 at the Wayback Machine July 12 2012 Retrieved August 2 2012 Blesch v Holder Immigration Equality s DOMA case put on hold Prop8TrialTracker Archived from the original on February 1 2013 Retrieved July 30 2012 Geidner Chris June 19 2012 Same Sex Couples Facing Immigration Questions Receive Temporary Relief From DOJ Immigration Board Metro Weekly Archived from the original on June 21 2012 Retrieved June 19 2012 Judge rules lesbian immigrant can challenge DOMA U T San Diego April 20 2013 Retrieved April 23 2013 Dobuzinskis Alex July 13 2012 Lesbian immigrant from PH challenges US gay marriage ban ABS CBN News Retrieved April 23 2013 Reilly Mollie June 29 2013 Gay Couple Receives Green Card After Supreme Court Ruling DOMA Project Huffington Post Retrieved June 30 2013 Bunch Joey July 5 2013 Boulder lesbian couple gets green card after DOMA falls The Denver Post Denver Post Retrieved July 6 2013 560 F 3d 1145 9th Cir 2009 Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same sex spouse unconstitutional Los Angeles Times February 9 2009 Retrieved November 6 2009 In re Kandu Archived October 28 2020 at the Wayback Machine 315 B R 123 138 Bankr D Wash 2004 Retrieved February 26 2011 DOMA s Unlikely Victim s The Advocate September 28 2004 p 15 Retrieved February 8 2012 Wilson v Ake 354 F Supp 2d 1298 M D Fla 2005 Smelt v County of Orange 447 F 3d 673 9th Cir 2006 Retrieved August 2 2012 Bay Area Reporter Bay Area Reporter Smelt v United States Notice of Removal Retrieved November 6 2009 Gay California couple s lawsuit dismissed UPI Retrieved February 26 2011 Bishop v Oklahoma 447 F Supp 2d 1239 N D Okla 2006 Retrieved February 8 2012 Bishop v US No 04 CV 848 TCK TLW slip op N D Okla November 24 2009 Retrieved August 1 2012 Obergefell v Hodges 576 U S 2015 The Court now holds that same sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry Bernie Becker September 15 2009 House Dems Take Aim at Marriage Law The New York Times Retrieved July 15 2010 Eleveld Kerry September 15 2009 Respect for Marriage Act Debuts The Advocate Retrieved September 15 2009 The Respect for Marriage Act Garners Support of President Clinton and Former Rep Bob Barr DOMA s Original Author Press release United States House of Representatives September 15 2009 Archived from the original on July 12 2011 Retrieved June 6 2012 Frank Will Not Support DOMA Repeal EDGE Boston September 14 2009 Retrieved July 21 2011 Johnson Chris September 28 2009 Berry ENDA should be LGBT priority Washington Blade Archived from the original on October 2 2009 Retrieved September 28 2009 S 598 H R 1116 Senate panel OKs repeal of Defense of Marriage Act USA Today Associated Press November 10 2011 Karni Annie November 16 2022 Same Sex Marriage Rights Bill Clears a Crucial Senate Hurdle The New York Times Retrieved November 17 2022 it would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which denied federal benefits to same sex couples General and cited references section editFeigen Brenda Same Sex Marriage An Issue of Constitutional rights not Moral Opinions 2004 27 Harv Women s L J 345 Carter W Burlette The Federal Law of Marriage Deference Deviation and DOMA 2013 21 Am U J Gender Soc Pol y amp L 70 The Federal Law of Marriage Deference Deviation and DOMA Same Sex Marriage Passage CQ Weekly Congressional Quarterly May 2 2005 Litigating the Defense of Marriage Act The Next Battleground for Same Sex Marriage 2004 117 Harv L Rev 2684 doi 10 2307 4093411 JSTOR 4093411 Manning Jason April 30 2004 Backgrounder The Defense of Marriage Act The Online News Hour The News Hour with Jim Lehrer Archived from the original on November 9 2013 Retrieved January 13 2007 United States 104th Congress Defense of Marriage Act House of Representatives Committee Report 1996 Wardle Lynn D A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Claims for Same Sex Marriage 1996 1996 B Y U L Rev 1 External links edit nbsp Wikisource has original text related to this article Defense of Marriage Act nbsp Wikinews has news related to Defense of Marriage Act GovTrack Library of Congress Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Defense of Marriage Act amp oldid 1179357792, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.