United States Defense of Marriage Act (1996)

United States Defense of Marriage Act (1996)
Name	Defense of Marriage Act
Enacted by	United States Congress
Effective date	1996
Introduced by	Bob Barr
Enacted	1996
Status	partially invalidated

United States Defense of Marriage Act (1996) was a federal statute enacted by the 104th United States Congress and signed by Bill Clinton that defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. The Act intersected with litigation involving the United States Supreme Court, challenges under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and debates among lawmakers including Newt Gingrich, Ted Olson, and Hillary Clinton.

Background and Legislative History

Passage arose amid national attention following the Baehr v. Miike decision in Hawaii and contemporaneous developments in Vermont and Massachusetts where cases and legislation prompted responses from figures like Evan Wolfson and organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and National Organization for Women. The legislative push involved committee work in the United States House Committee on the Judiciary and the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with sponsors including Bob Barr and supporters from caucuses aligned with Christian Coalition and opponents including civil liberties groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Floor debates in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate referenced rulings such as Romer v. Evans and political dynamics involving the 1996 United States presidential election and the 1994 United States House of Representatives elections.

Provisions of the Act

The Act comprised two major sections: one defining "marriage" for all federal statutes and regulations and another permitting states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. It specified federal treatment under agencies such as the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Defense, and it affected statutory schemes administered by bodies like the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The statute amended the United States Code to add definitions and included sections debated in the context of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and federalism jurisprudence exemplified by cases such as United States v. Windsor.

Legal Challenges and Court Decisions

Plaintiffs including couples and advocacy organizations brought challenges in district courts such as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, while appellate review occurred in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Landmark litigation culminated in the United States v. Windsor decision by the United States Supreme Court in 2013, which found Section 3 of the Act unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection principles; subsequent litigation such as Obergefell v. Hodges addressed broader marriage recognition under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Other cases including Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Kitchen v. Herbert contributed to the judicial trajectory that narrowed the Act's applicability.

Impact on Federal Benefits and State Laws

The Act affected eligibility for benefits administered by federal agencies including the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Homeland Security as well as entitlements under programs overseen by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of Personnel Management. It influenced state administrative decisions in jurisdictions such as California, New York (state), and Massachusetts where state marriage statutes and court decrees interacted with federal definitions. The Act prompted revisions to federal regulations, notices from the General Services Administration, and policy memos from executive offices including the Office of Management and Budget.

Political and Social Reactions

Reaction spanned political actors from Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson to activists like Edith Windsor and organizations such as the Family Research Council and the Human Rights Campaign. Advocacy and opposition involved rallies, litigation campaigns, and legislative proposals at the state level by entities like the California State Legislature and the Massachusetts General Court, while interest groups including Citizens United-aligned organizations and trade unions mobilized around related ballot measures such as those in Colorado and Oregon. Public opinion tracked through polling by firms like Gallup and commentators in outlets referencing constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe and Bruce Ackerman informed ongoing debates.

Repeal and Aftermath

Section 3 was effectively invalidated by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor (2013), which prompted federal agencies including the Department of Justice and the Department of State to change application of statutes governing benefits, taxation, and immigration such as the Immigration and Nationality Act. Legislative repeal efforts in the United States Congress were pursued intermittently by members of both parties including proponents like Barney Frank and opponents like Rick Santorum, but comprehensive repeal legislation faced procedural and political hurdles until judicial rulings altered practical effect. The aftermath included changes in federal rulemaking and executive guidance across agencies including the Social Security Administration.

Legacy and Continuing Legal Issues

The Act's legacy appears in jurisprudence shaping constitutional doctrine around equal protection and federalism, influencing cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges and informing scholarship by academics like Cass Sunstein and Kenji Yoshino. Ongoing issues involve interpretation of remaining statutory language, questions before courts such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and conflicts regarding religious exemptions invoked by institutions like Bakeries and Religious nonprofits adjudicated in forums such as the Supreme Court of the United States. The statute remains a touchstone in debates among policymakers in the United States Congress, advocates at the Human Rights Campaign, and legal scholars analyzing the interplay of federal statutes and constitutional rights.

Category:United States federal legislation 1996