Defense Marriage Act Analysis

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) allows for all the states to deny same-sex couples the same rights as their counterparts. It also gives a formal definition to marriage as the union between a man and a woman (Same Sex Marriage, 2017). The bill does violate the Establishment clause in the First Amendment as the government fails to separate church and state. The document does allude to the book of Genesis when it defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman (Text-HR, 2017). However, most of the nation did not approve of same-sex marriages as the time so the President chose to sign the bill that would later be revoked because of court case Obergefell vs Hodges (Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

Issue: It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One of the Republican congresspersons who helped write the act is currently opposing it. In Lehman's words, "many Republicans believe it's only a matter of time until DOMA is repealed," (cited by Bendery, 2012, p. 2). Therefore, it would be wise for the president to take an affirmative, and firm, stances in favor of legislation that expressly and unequivocally supports marriage equality. If the president takes a firm stance on this issue, you will be lauded for your decisive action rather than passive response to the ongoing debate. Lehman, a republican, notes the irony of being "politically to the left of Obama" on this issue (cited by Bendery, 2012, p. 2). You are known for having an "evolving" stance on the issue (Bendery, 2012, p. 2). A firmer stance on the issue of marriage equality would work to the president's favor in the 2012 elections this November. Because the president is celebrated for his open-mindedness and willingness to listen to all points of view, the following outline of opposing viewpoints should help. This outline will also help the president formulate cohesive responses to opposition to the proposed marriage equality bill. Each opposing viewpoint is countered by cogent arguments.

In 2013 the Supreme Court overturned a key provision of DOMA, declaring part of it unconstitutional and in breach of the Fifth

Laws afford protection and equality to personal choices relating to marriage, barrier methods for pregnancy, reproduction, family relationship, child care, and guidance. Homosexual people may see self-determination on these aspects, just as straight people do. It doesn 't take an expert or the government to be involved to understand the definition of these words. The authority and the court specialists approve any circumstance. Authorized academics are widely unfavorably opponents. The most outstanding constitutional specialists on this matter are "Cass Sunstein, Erwin Chemerinksky, and William Eskridge" They estimate that DOMA or other long established marriage laws across the states will be unwelcome and unenforceable as not in accordance with the constitution. In addition, the actions of disapproving and eliminating long established marriage laws national has already started. A spokesperson of the Lambda legal corporation which want to stop traditional marriage laws across the states, clearly expressed that they won 't give up until the same sex or gender marriage come across the entire nation. Many other democrats like "John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and former presidential candidates Howard Dean and Carol Moseley Braun", all of them have refused DOMA as not in accordance with the constitution or with the rules and want DOMA to be disproved or refuted by the judicature and with no fundamental or established set of principles governing,

According to DOMA, “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” (sec 3). Until recently 2013, the US Supreme Court finally delivered the verdict that declared section 3 of the DOMA, which is the rejection of right to gay marriage is unconstitutional (Shapiro 208). In “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right” by Nathan Goetting, “The right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967.” Currently, 17 states in the United States have legalized the right to same sex marriage. The realization of DOMA is unconstitutional has further evidenced that gay marriage is one of the civil right that should not be taken away by the government, and it is an inevitable changes that open doors for equality and equity.

On June 26, 2013, The United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enabling same-sex couples legally married under state law to be recognized for the purpose and benefit of federal law. Section 3 of DOMA previously defined marriage as the legal union of two persons of the opposite sex. This definition was challenged in several court cases for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edith Windsor in U.S. v. Windsor, declaring DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and allowing same-sex couples to be recognized as married for federal purposes. This opens up several opportunities within federal income tax and estate and gift tax. Some of these benefits include higher standard deductions and gain exclusion; opportunity to lower tax bracket through combining incomes; and entitlement to the marital deduction, gift splitting, and portability of DSUE. Marriage also results in tax disadvantages such as the marriage penalty, joint and several liability, and refund offsetting. Taxpayers and tax preparers should be aware of the new planning opportunities available to married same-sex couples,

As everything in life has its effects, DOMA had a negative affect, which appeared over time. The good side was that this law was applied to the majority and gave strength to a lot of people but since there was a minority, which doesn’t agree with DOMA, it turned negative. DOMA caused many problems to these minority people, causing many spouses to not get the same rights and claims as others. For example, as a same-sex marriage spouse you couldn’t claim your spouse as anything because according to the state law it’s not a legal marriage. Others faced problems such as they couldn’t even visit their spouse or help in any health issues because of the requirement that they be immediate family, and they were not recognized as spouses. DOMA law in section 2 said, “No state has an obligation to recognize marriages that

Section 1: The first major law that affected same-sex marriage was the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. DOMA defined that marriage was between a man and a woman at the federal level. It also gave states the right to reject recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. “DOMA mandates unequal treatment of legally married same-sex couples, selectively depriving them of the 1,138+ protections and responsibilities that marriage triggers at the federal level.” (Freedom to Marry) At the time DOMA was passed, no states permitted gays and lesbians to marry. On June 26, 2013, in Windsor v. United States, “Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples.” (Savage) When the ruling was declared, twelve states and the District of Columbia legally recognized

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed on September 21, 1996, was an act that intended to provide a concrete definition of marriage and protect it from attempts to redefine it. Due to an increased number of citizens realizing that, because of their homosexual marriage, they would not receive the same benefits of a heterosexual

DOMA basically says the United Stated will not support a homosexual union, but each states’ government can decide for themselves, their stand on marriage (Defense of Marriage Act.). DOMA does two things, one is it defines marriage in federal law and two it enables states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states (Gacek). Sadly, the U.S Supreme Court and the Obama Administration ruled it unconstitutional. However, DOMA is still law due to the unsuccessful attempts to appeal it. This world is not fair and there will be discrimination no matter the outcome.

For this journal entry, I have decided to review the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in 2009, as a repeal to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which deems that the federal government does not recognize marriages of same sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act was then reintroduced in 2015. The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29)., amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state,

The introduction of Defense of marriage act in May 1996 (DOMA) was passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996. By defining "spouse" and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 organized 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, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the possibility of laws protecting families of federal officers. The Defense of Marriage act provides the Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:

Legalizing and controlling same-sex marriage has been a battle since the early 2000s in the United States. On November 18, 2003 same sex marriage was legalized for the first time in the United States by Massachusetts. Hearing of the legalization, many same-sex couples from other states arrived in Massachusetts to finalize their marriage. Unfortunately, when the couples returned to their home states the documents were not recognized as legal under the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA). The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DoMA stated that same-sex marriage should be reconconized as illegal. After