Home Marriage Defense of Marriage Act Text

Defense of Marriage Act Text

Defense of Marriage Act Text

Full Text of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996

Public Law 104-199

104th Congress

An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

The United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) In General.–Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following: “Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof “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.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: “1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.”.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) In General.–Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’ “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.”.

[[Page 110 STAT. 2420]]

(b) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item: “7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’.”.

Approved September 21, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY–H.R. 3396:

HOUSE REPORTS No. 104-664 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

July 11, 12, considered and passed House.

Sept. 10, considered and passed Senate.


Introduction

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a federal law in the United States that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The law was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and remained in effect until it was struck down as unconstitutional in 2013. DOMA was a highly controversial law that sparked debates about state rights, religious freedom and civil rights. In this article, we will review the text of the Defense of Marriage Act, its impact on the country and the legal challenges it faced.

DOMA Background

In the years leading up to DOMA, same-sex marriage was not legally recognized in any U.S. states. However, a few states began granting same-sex couples limited legal recognition through civil unions or domestic partnerships. This led to concerns among opponents of same-sex marriage that these legal unions would lead to same-sex marriage becoming legally recognized across the country.

In response to this concern, Congress passed DOMA in 1996. The law defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman, which included benefits, taxes, and immigration. The law also stated that no state could be required to recognize a same-sex marriage that occurred in another state. DOMA was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Clinton.

The main rationale behind DOMA was to prevent homosexual couples from obtaining federal benefits through marriage. This was controversial because it was widely believed that DOMA was an attack on the civil rights of homosexuals. Defenders of DOMA argued that it was a necessary defense of traditional marriage values. Regardless of its intention, DOMA polarized the nation and became the focal point for civil rights activists who were advocating for equal rights for all.

DOMA Text

Section 1 of DOMA states that “”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.””

This section is significant because it clarifies that marriage, for federal purposes, is exclusively between one man and one woman. This means that same-sex couples are prohibited from receiving any federal benefits that are reserved for married couples. In addition, this section effectively nullified any same-sex marriages that were recognized by certain states or foreign countries.

Section 2 of DOMA states 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.””

This section is very consequential because it essentially gives states the right to ignore the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in other states. This means that if one state recognizes same-sex marriage while another does not, the second state can refuse to recognize the legality of same-sex marriage, even if the couple legally married in the first state. The impact of this section is far-reaching and has implications not just for same-sex marriages, but also for other types of legal recognition, like civil unions and domestic partnerships.

DOMA Impact

The impact of DOMA on same-sex couples was undeniable. The law effectively denied same-sex couples the benefits and protections afforded to other married couples, such as Social Security survivor benefits, spousal health insurance coverage, and the ability to file joint tax returns. This created a significant financial and legal disadvantage for same-sex couples that was not faced by heterosexual couples.

DOMA was a massive hurdle to the progression of civil liberties for LGBT people. LGBT people suffered periods of discrimination and the law threatened to prolong this legacy by preventing them from receiving equal treatment. The consequences of DOMA were weighty and profound. It sent a message to LGBT people that they were not considered important enough by their country to be treated as equals. For many, this was not acceptable.

Legal Challenges To DOMA

From the moment DOMA was passed, it was highly contested. LGBT activists saw the law as a blatant violation of civil rights, while conservative groups viewed it as a necessary defense of traditional marriage values. Despite these opposing views, legal challenges began soon after its enactment.

One of the most significant legal victories against DOMA was United States v. Windsor. In this case, an 84-year-old New Yorker named Edith Windsor was denied the tax exemption for surviving spouses because she was in a same-sex marriage with her partner Thea Spyer. Windsor sued the federal government, arguing that DOMA was unconstitutional because it defined marriage exclusively as a union between one man and one woman. In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that Section 3 of DOMA was indeed unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.””

Another important challenge to DOMA was Hollingsworth v. Perry. In this case, same-sex couples sought to have California’s Prop 8, which prohibited same-sex couples from marrying, ruled unconstitutional. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that proponents of Prop 8 had no legal standing to defend the law since it was later vetoed by a state official, allowing California to practice same-sex marriage.

In conclusion, the Defense of Marriage Act was a controversial law that was passed in 1996. It defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman and barred same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits that are reserved for married couples. The law polarized the nation and became the focal point for civil rights activists who were advocating for equal rights for all. Legal challenges like United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry were key milestones in the fight-based discrimination and discriminatory state laws. DOMA’s fall brought tremendous change for the LGBTQ+ Americans, but the fight for diversity, equality, and love remains.