Generated by DeepSeek V3.2| Defense of Marriage Act | |
|---|---|
| Shorttitle | Defense of Marriage Act |
| Othershorttitles | DOMA |
| Longtitle | An act to define and protect the institution of marriage. |
| Enacted by | 104th |
| Effective | September 21, 1996 |
| Public law | 104-199 |
| Statutes at large | 110 Stat. 2419 |
| Introducedin | House |
| Introducedby | Bob Barr (R–GA) |
| Introduceddate | May 7, 1996 |
| Committees | House Judiciary Committee |
| Passedbody1 | House |
| Passeddate1 | July 12, 1996 |
| Passedvote1 | 342–67 |
| Passedbody2 | Senate |
| Passeddate2 | September 10, 1996 |
| Passedvote2 | 85–14 |
| Signedpresident | Bill Clinton |
| Signeddate | September 21, 1996 |
Defense of Marriage Act was a landmark federal statute of the United States passed in 1996. It was introduced in response to state-level litigation, such as the case in Hawaii, that appeared poised to legalize same-sex marriage. The law sought to define marriage for federal purposes and explicitly allow states to refuse recognition of such unions performed in other jurisdictions.
The legislative push emerged during a period of significant social and legal debate in the mid-1990s. The immediate catalyst was the 1993 decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike, which suggested the state's prohibition might violate the Hawaii State Constitution. Fearing a potential requirement under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution to recognize such marriages, members of the Republican-controlled 104th United States Congress drafted the bill. Key proponents included Representative Bob Barr of Georgia and Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma. The legislation moved swiftly through the House and the Senate with veto-proof majorities. President Bill Clinton, facing reelection pressure, signed it into law despite expressing reservations.
The statute contained two primary operative sections. Section 2 addressed interstate recognition, declaring that no state or territory shall be required to give effect to a same-sex marriage treated as such under the laws of another state. This provision directly targeted the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Section 3 created a federal definition of marriage as exclusively a legal union between one man and one woman, and of spouse as referring only to a person of the opposite sex. This definition applied to all federal laws, rules, and regulations, impacting over 1,000 federal provisions including those pertaining to Social Security benefits, federal taxes, immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and family medical leave.
The law faced numerous challenges in federal courts, primarily targeting Section 3. Early cases like Smelt v. County of Orange were dismissed on procedural grounds. A significant breakthrough came in 2009 with Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, where a federal district court in Massachusetts found Section 3 unconstitutional. This ruling was followed by the landmark 2013 Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor. In a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3, ruling it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by demeaning and imposing inequality upon same-sex couples legally married under state law.
Following the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide, Section 2 of the law became effectively unenforceable. Legislative efforts to remove the statute's language entirely culminated in the Respect for Marriage Act. Passed by the 117th United States Congress, the bill was signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022, formally repealing the 1996 act and requiring federal and state recognition of lawful marriages without regard to sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.
For nearly two decades, the law had profound consequences, denying federal benefits and recognition to legally married same-sex couples and creating a complex patchwork of state recognition policies. It served as a major political and cultural flashpoint, galvanizing both the Christian right and the LGBT rights movement. Its eventual invalidation in United States v. Windsor was a pivotal victory for marriage equality, directly paving the way for the national ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The law remains a critical case study in federalism, the evolution of civil rights, and the dynamic interaction between Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary.
Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation Category:Same-sex marriage in the United States Category:1996 in American law