The Defense of Marriage Act, also commonly known as DOMA, is a U.S. federal law that, among other things, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This definition was intended to be universal in federal dealings and applies to things beyond the logistics of a marriage license, including health and monetary benefits and inheritance claims. In addition, it gives certain powers to the individual states, basically allowing each state’s government to determine its own laws regarding marriage and its benefits. The law was signed into effect in 1996 under President Bill Clinton, but Section 3 — a key section concerning the federal definition of “marriage” and “spouse” — was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. The law remains on the books, but is not as powerful or as enforceable without that section.
Overarching Intent
Georgia State Representative Bob Barr was the original author of the Defense of Marriage Act, though it saw many revisions and updates before it was ultimately passed. The law was originally intended to expand states’ rights on the topic of marriage. It achieved this by overriding previous laws that required states to recognize marriages performed outside their borders.
Questions of state reciprocity on the topic of marriage arose most profoundly in 1993, when Hawaii became the first state to recognize same-sex marriages. Lawmakers in many other states were concerned about how Hawaii’s ruling would affect their state’s laws, as many were vehemently opposed to same-sex marriages and did not want their governments to be required to recognize these sorts of unions by default. The DOMA was developed in large part to quell these fears and to prevent mandatory reciprocity.
Passage and Immediate Consequences
After passing through the United States’ House of Representatives with a vote of 342 to 67, DOMA was brought before the Senate, where it passed with a vote of 85 to 14. Both of these votes were landslide majorities. In the aftermath of the passage, several states began enacting constitutional amendments to define marriage in the same terms as the federal government, granting marriages solely to heterosexual couples. In addition, under the Defense of Marriage Act, these same states were no longer required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where homosexual unions were allowed.
Importance of Federal Recognition
A number of states passed laws to recognize same-sex marriages in the months and years following the passage of DOMA. This is a state issue and doesn’t change the fact that, under the terms of the Defense of Marriage Act, only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized by the federal government. In other words, even if a state recognizes the marriage, the federal government does not — meaning partners in a same-sex marriage may not receive the same federal rights that heterosexual couples receive.
For example, according to the terms of the law, same-sex couples are not eligible for spousal Social Security or veterans’ benefits, and they do not qualify for the same tax credits that are available to heterosexual couples. Immigration privileges, inheritance protection, parental rights, and health insurance benefits are also affected by the act. They may have privileges in their home state, but these don’t translate to the national level.
Constitutionality Debate
DOMA has had many critics over the years, perhaps none more powerful than President Obama, who vowed to repeal the law during his 2008 campaign for the presidency. Before that time many lawmakers had attempted to repeal the act, citing the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment as grounds for its reversal.
In 2013 the Supreme Court invalidated section 3 of the Act in the case of U.S. v. Windsor. Section 3 details how the terms “marriage” and “spouse” should be defined — namely, as applicable to a man and a woman in a specifically heterosexual union — on the grounds that the section was unconstitutional. The act is still a part of the United States’ federal law, but many of its original supporters say that it is all but meaningless after the Court’s ruling.
