DOMA

__Callie Bruce__ Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A. )

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a lesbian couple, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada in 2007, but then moved to New York, where their marriage was not recognized. Thea Spyer died in 2009, and left her partner, Edith Windsor, her entire estate. Typically, spouses can claim federal estate taz exemption, which

wait, is this for Windsor vs us? -kt

__Katie Tender__

The Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A) was signed into law in 1996 under Clinton. It a) defines marriage, in the legal sense, as an institution between a man and a woman and b) says that states, tribes, and territories do not have to adhere to rulings on same sex marriage in other states, tribes, or territories (United States, Congress, House 1). The implications of facet b (which is section 3) is that a state sanctioned homosexual marriage is not to be federally recognized. If marriage is not federally recognized, there are about 1100 benefits, protections, and policies that are not applicable to the partners (Human Rights Campaign). The actual act is about half a page with 3 sections.

**History:** In 1993, Nina Baehr sued the state of Hawaii for refusing to allow her to legally marry her partner, saying it was tantamount to illegal discrimination. In //Baehr vs. Miike// (originally //Baehr vs. Lewin//), the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that this claim was true, and that under the states Equal Rights Amendment, Hawaii would have to establish a compelling argument on why it would be in the state's best interest to ban same-sex marriage in order to institute such a ban (1993: The Hawaii Case). This verdict did not fully legalize same-sex marriage, but it didn't completely dismiss the issue, and it served to bolster morale for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Here is why this matters on the federal level: The Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution says that states have to give "full faith and credit" (just consideration) to proceedings, rulings, laws, etc. in other states (US Const. art. IV, sec. 1). This means that if gay marriage were to be legalized in Hawaii, they would have to be recognized in other states. In theory, homosexual couples could simply get married in Hawaii, and all other states would have to recognize their marriage. DOMA, and scores of state laws banning same-sex marriage, were instituted as a response to this case (1993: The Hawaii Case) . One interesting response to DOMA is the Respect for Marriage Act, which is a proposed bill in Congress. It fully repeals DOMA and therefore makes it that any same-sex couple can get the full federal benefits of marriage not matter what states they live in, provided they were married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal (Human Rights Campaign).

As is expected, the reactions to DOMA differ widely based on the opinion of the group or organization. Many human rights organizations opposed it, but it did get some (not a ton) of support within the homosexual community. (So don't be blown out of your seat if an interviewee supports or is indifferent towards DOMA).

Works Cited

Human Rights Campaign. "Respect for Marriage Act." //Human Rights Campaign//. Human Rights Campaign, 30 July 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. .

"1993: The Hawaii Case of Baehr v. Lewin." //FindLaw//. Thomson Reuters, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. .

United States. Cong. House. //An Act to Define and Protect the Institute of Marriage//. 104th Cong. H. H.R. 3396. //US Government Printing Office//. Web. 22 Sept. 2013. .

US Const. art. IV, sec. 1. Print.