Defense of Marriage Act

Defense of Marriage Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Defense of Marriage Act
Short title	DOMA
Long title	An Act to define and protect marriage
Colloquial acronym	DOMA
Enacted by	United States Congress
Effective date	1996-09-21
Public law	104–199
Citations	110 Stat. 2419
Introduced in	United States House of Representatives
Signed by	Bill Clinton

Contents

Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act was a 1996 United States federal law enacted by the 104th United States Congress and signed by Bill Clinton that affected federal recognition of marital status and interstate treatment of marriages. It emerged amid debates involving prominent figures and events such as Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential election, and activism following the Baker v. Nelson era. The statute played a central role in litigation involving parties including Edith Windsor, James Obergefell, and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the Human Rights Campaign.

Background and enactment

Legislative origins trace to political dynamics after the Hawaii same-sex marriage decision and cultural controversies involving figures like Ellen DeGeneres, George W. Bush, and institutions such as the United Methodist Church and the Catholic Church in the United States. Congressional sponsors included Bob Barr and Henry Hyde and legislative maneuvering occurred within committees including the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill advanced through votes in the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate amid lobbying by groups including Focus on the Family, AARP, and civil rights advocates like ACLU National; prominent proponents referenced precedents such as Baker v. Nelson and state statutes from jurisdictions including California and Massachusetts. After passage by both chambers, Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law on September 21, 1996.

The statute comprised two key sections: a definitional provision that addressed recognition for purposes of federal statutes and a full faith and credit–related provision limiting interstate recognition. The definitional section directed federal agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, to apply a definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman for over a thousand federal statutes including those governing Internal Revenue Code benefits, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and immigration administered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The interstate provision restricted recognition of same-sex marriages performed under the laws of a State when another State was asked to give effect, implicating doctrines involving the Full Faith and Credit Clause and state law conflicts. The law created standing and statutory questions that engaged courts such as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Litigation arose from suits including United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges that reached the Supreme Court of the United States. In cases led by plaintiffs such as Edith Windsor and represented by counsel from organizations such as Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and GLAAD, lower courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued divergent rulings, prompting certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court. In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held aspects unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause as applied through precedents including Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas; that decision affected federal benefits administered by agencies like the Department of Justice and the Social Security Administration. Later, in Obergefell v. Hodges, plaintiffs such as James Obergefell achieved recognition of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, with opinions authored and joined by Justices from blocs associated with figures like John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.

The statute influenced electoral politics, policy debates, and advocacy by groups such as the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, Human Rights Campaign, and faith-based coalitions including National Association of Evangelicals. It featured in campaigns involving candidates like Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Ted Kennedy, shifting party platforms and state initiatives including ballot measures in Colorado, Oregon, California Proposition 8, and Maine. The law catalyzed activism by organizations including Freedom to Marry, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and provoked corporate responses from companies such as Apple Inc., Microsoft, and IBM on employee benefits. Cultural responses involved media personalities such as Oprah Winfrey and entertainers like Lady Gaga and Ellen DeGeneres, while advocacy and religious opposition engaged institutions such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Following judicial rulings, federal agencies revised regulations and rulemaking to extend spousal benefits across programs including tax filing, immigration petitioning via Form I-130 at USCIS, and survivor benefits at the Social Security Administration. Congress and administrations including those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama confronted the statute in policy and litigation contexts; legislative repeal efforts and acts of Congress debated overlaps with statutes such as the Respect for Marriage Act deliberated in later sessions of the United States Congress. The post-decision environment saw administrative guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, litigation over implementation in district courts including the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and continued state-level developments in jurisdictions like New York, Massachusetts, and California. The legal and social trajectory influenced subsequent cases touching civil rights doctrines exemplified by Brown v. Board of Education and fed into broader debates involving institutions such as the Supreme Court Historical Society and think tanks including the Brookings Institution.