The Pros And Cons Of DOMA

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).

The case was later sent to lower court. Voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Hawaii gain national attention, over 40 states over the next 10 years will pass the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMAs). That defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. On September 21, 1996. President Bill Clinton, signed Federal Defense Of Marriage Act into a law. Which define marriage at a federal level between one man and one woman. This meant there would be no recognition in same sex nor federal protection and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. Vermont was the first state to introduce same sex marriage by enacting a statue without being required to do so by a court decision. December 20, 1999, Vermont court ruled in baker v. Vermont that Vermont constitution entitles same sex couples to the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite sex couples. Between 2005 and Sep. 15, 2010, 14 more states followed suit, bringing the total number of states with constitutional bans on gay marriage to 30. On July 19, 2011, the Obama administration announced that it will be supporting a bill to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act. Another decision on Feburary 23, 2011, Obama instructed the Justice Department ti stop defending Defense of Marriage act, over concerns that it violates the fifth amendment. On May 9, 2012 President Obama was the first sitting

This act was passed to define and protect the institution of marriage which is supposed to be “between a man and a woman”. As a tactic, the state of Vermont promoted same sex marriages by labeling them as “civil unions” (Schowengerdt, 2002). The state of Vermont felt civil unions would provide gays and lesbians with the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples (Stewart, 2004). In 1998, Hawaii’s stated legislation implemented the DOMA amendment that altered the state’s constitution and rejected same sex marriages (Schowengerdt, 2002). Between 1995 and 2000, 28 states passed laws preventing the recognition of same sex marriages (Schowengert, 2002). The purpose of the DOMA was to prevent gays and lesbians from “exporting same sex marriages to other states” (Finnis, 1997). A Florida Federal Judge denied two women recognition of their marriage which took place in Massachusetts. As a result of this denial, attemtps were made to force other states and the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in states where it is legal (Stewart, 2003).

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

Proposition 8 was placed on a ballot in California which made same- sex marriage illegal, and was also deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the elected officials of California chose not to defend Proposition 8 once it was deemed unconstitutional the case should have been dismissed, and the petitioners shouldn’t have been allowed standing for appeal. DOMA was purposed that if States recognized same- sex marriages they were to be classified as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. The definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a religious ideology. To deny a person their right as a citizen of the United States of America to marry whomever they choose is illegal, and the Courts have agreed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the decision in the Loving v. Virginia (1958) which deemed the laws of banning interracial marriages unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Justice Earl Warren noted “Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, the person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” This has opened up many discussions that because the ban of interracial marriages was deemed unconstitutional the laws that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a gendered based classification. Restricting marriage on the foundation of a person’s gender is just as unconstitutional as laws restricting marriage on the basis of a person’s

Section 2 of DOMA declares that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

The United States Constitution protects certain liberties in the Bill of Rights and rights deemed “fundamental” that are “traditionally protected by our society.” (Michael H. v. Gerald D.). The liberty at issue in this case is the right to marry, which has been deemed fundamental by this Court in Loving v. Virginia, where we stated that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Loving v. Virginia). The petitioners in the case at bar seek that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages be equal to traditional, opposite-sex couples.

The judges based their decision on the principle of equality of all before the law. The 14th Amendment requires a state to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex. According to US constitutional law, each US state has its own Constitution, but it is above all the US Federal Constitution. To date 37 of the 50 American states, as well as the District of Columbia, recognized gay marriage. Now, the 14 American states that still refuse to unite two persons of the same sex will not only have to marry

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed in 1996, positions the opinion that for the sake of federal law, the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” shall reference the lawful unions between one man and one woman. Edith Winsor was the widow and solitary executor of the estate of her late spouse Thea Clara Spyer who she had married in a ceremony in Toronto, Canada. The State of New York had recognized their marriage, but, owing to the failure of the federal government to recognize the marriage of the complainant a tax was levied against the estate in the amount of $363,000. The defense for the complainant held that had the marriage been recognized the estate would have qualified for the marital exemption where no taxes would have been imposed against the estate of the deceased.

The ruling led to federal actions and actions by several states, to restrict marriage to male-female couples, in particular the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

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.

The Defense Marriage Act is also known as DOMA. This act has been around for decades and continues to change over the years to shape individuals rights and needs. Individual’s perception of marriage equality is constantly evolving, and the number of government officials that recognize same-sex marriage is constantly changing (Rodriguez & Blumell, 2014). This act not only affects the LGBTQ community and their families, but also affects the whole nation. Many have different opinions on the topic and what should be in the Defense Marriage Act. Some were elated with the recent decision in the summer of 2013 the LGBT community where included in the Defense Marriage Act. This arose when the language of section (2) in the DOMA, was defined as unconstitutional

Presidential candidate Barack Obama declared just prior to the 2008 General Election, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Fast forward seven and a half years later and the now President Obama has made good on this threat.

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

Same sex marriage has been widely looked down upon for ages. People say, “It’s not the traditional constitutional marriage”, or “Children need a mother and a father”. It honestly doesn’t matter. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry. It’s just as simple as that. What other reason do you need? If two complete strangers of the same sex want to be together for the rest of their lives, we should let them.First, denying some people to marry is discriminatory. Judge Sarah Zabel of Miami-Dade Circuit Court ruled the gay marriage ban of Florida unconstitutional. She stated that it, “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as 2nd class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” In other words, you’re looking down upon same sex couples that want to get married as if they’re lower than you; that they don’t deserve the same rights as us. Same sex couples would be able to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples if they were able to be married.Furthermore, the General Accounting Office made an assessment in 2004 about the benefits that heterosexual married couples have that same sex couples could not. Some of these benefits include hospital visitation during an illness and the option of filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden. Imagine not being able to see your significant other in the hospital