The Defense Of Marriage Act

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).

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was enacted in September 21, 1996 signed by President Bill Clinton. The purpose of this act was to recognize marriage as a bond only between a man and a woman. It has been widely debated whether marriage only consists between a man and woman, since because it has been traditionally recognized and practiced dating back thousands of years ago until today.

The executive branch agreed upon the DOMA being unconstitutional about how they took this situation of same-sex partnership & spouses. Although the Court has considered whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it is important to certify the federal laws to other states on same-sex spouses as the constitutional decisions of the citizens of the United States have, relating to our civil

On the third of January 1996, an act was established to define and protect the instruction of marriage during the second session, which was called the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’. This act made it that the United States passed a federal law that defined marriage for federal purpose of the union of a single man and a single women, which allowed states to refuse the acknowledgement of

However, in 2010, the Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, forcing the federal government to recognize legal marriages of same-sex couples. This enabled committed same-sex couples that are legally married in their own states to receive federal protections.

The BLAG argues that the Court should apply the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, because the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community is not a protected class. Since all parties agree the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, the court argues there is no injury to Congress if DOMA is overturned, that BLAG violates the separation of powers, and that no Article III controversy exists. There are many social implications for the DOMA but BLAG agues it serves a federal interest by preserving traditional marriage to encourage responsible procreation. Proponents of DOMA believe marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers—parents with differentiated roles that are not interchangeable. BLAG claims responsible procreation is at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage because of the inextricable link between marriage and children. Those opposed to DOMA argue it is bad social policy and claim that all Americans—regardless of their sexual orientation—deserve the rights afforded to their peers because all are contributing members of society. They also argue that burdens placed on members of the LGBT community are based on harmful stereotypes with no basis in the individuals’ abilities. Concerns from the federal system are proponents of DOMA claim the law protects states’ sovereignty and neither creates a federalism problem nor hinders state autonomy. DOMA ensures states can independently decide to refuse same-sex marriages because DOMA allows each state to define marriage for itself under state law, and does not allow any state’s definition to eclipse another’s. Those opposed to DOMA claim Congress disregarded federalism

It is in sweeping terms that would have been unimaginable just about 12 years ago. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts became the first state to ratify the right to marriage equality at a state level constitution. Now the Supreme Court of the United States is needed to decide whether the Federal Constitution would require all states to either license same-sex marriages or to recognize those marriages if they’re performed elsewhere in a state that allows it.

In defense of marriage by John Corny, President Bill Clinton and the government were able to approve the defense of marriage act (DOMA). DOMA is defined as the union of a man and a woman which it was what mostly of the people consider to be right. The main question is if people should continue this or change? The answer is that many activists have been trying to change that definition. This changes has already begun in many states of the country , and those who supported DOMA long time ago, are not able to support marriage today. There is one thing that has never become different, it is how people think a kid is best raised by a woman and a man. However, today marriage appears to be in a general agreement that is being complicated.

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.

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 current major state and federal law that is affecting same-sex marriage is the Defense of Marriage Act , or DOMA as it also called. The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law that allows each state to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same-sex that has been recognized in another state and it also explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." When asking the people that I interviewed what their feelings were towards the Defense of Marriage Act and how it currently affects the issue of same-sex marriage and the interviewees who were for same-sex marriage felt that the law was inherently wrong and the person I interviewed who was opposed to same-sex marriage thought the law was good except for one obvious flaw with it.

Doma or The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 in efforts to stop same-sex marriages in fear of the debate in Hawaii. Doma this labeled gays as immoral, perverse, depraved, and an attack on God’s principles. Congress passed Doma defining marriage as between a women and a man for the first time in history (Stone, 2012). Congress was clearly influenced by religious beliefs in passing Doma, which makes this unconstitutional. The United states government provides many benefits to married couples such as federal employees are entitled to medical coverage, the spouse of an individual covered by Social Security is eligible for retirement and survivor benefits, and married couples who file joint tax returns usually pay considerably lower federal income taxes than individuals who file separately (Stone, 2012 p.1). However, gay couples are refused these rights under law. Gay couples are denied many rights making them second class in the eyes of the government. If the partner of a gay couple was to be hospitalized the other can be denied rights to see them because they are not considered family. If the partner was to pass away the family can come in and make all the decisions even though it might be against the wishes of the deceased. The family can then take everything away from the surviving partner that dedicated their life and love to. The

Despite the widely held belief that marriages bring people emotional stability, financial security, and even long life, opposition to gay marriage is a lot stronger than opposition to heterosexual divorce. Consider the strong bipartisan support for the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which greatly restricts the legality of gay marriages permitted by any state. DOMA was passed by strong majorities in the House and Senate in 1996, with the support of liberals like Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone and Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, as well as conservative, twice-divorced Georgia Congressman Bob Barr. Why is divorce among heterosexuals so much more acceptable than marriage among gay people? Divorce is generally regarded as a social ill, but homosexuality is still apt to be condemned as a sin. Indeed, opposition to gay rights helps unite religious conservatives.

Advice to a U.S. State Senator on whether natural law might determine whether passing a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage is an appropriate legislative act?