Legal Definitions - Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law enacted in 1996 that defined marriage for federal purposes as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. This law had two primary effects:

• It prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if those marriages were legally performed and recognized by individual states.
• It allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that had been legally performed in other states.

As a result, DOMA denied same-sex married couples access to a wide range of federal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that were available to opposite-sex married couples. These included rights related to federal taxes, Social Security survivor benefits, immigration, military spousal benefits, and health insurance coverage through a spouse's employer.

The core provisions of DOMA were later challenged and largely invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2013, the Court's decision in United States v. Windsor struck down the part of DOMA that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Then, in 2015, the landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples nationwide, effectively invalidating the remaining provisions of DOMA that allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages. While DOMA is no longer in effect, its historical impact on the rights and recognition of same-sex couples in the United States was profound.

Examples of DOMA's Impact:

• Federal Tax Implications: Before 2013, Alex and Ben were legally married in New York, a state that recognized same-sex marriage. Alex worked for a large company, and Ben was a freelance artist. When it came time to file their federal income taxes, they wanted to file jointly, as many married couples do to potentially receive tax advantages.

  Due to DOMA, the federal government did not recognize their marriage. This meant Alex and Ben were unable to file a joint federal tax return. They had to file as "single" or "head of household," missing out on potential tax benefits and complicating their financial lives as a recognized married couple would not have experienced.

  This example illustrates DOMA's primary effect of defining marriage for federal purposes as exclusively between one man and one woman. Even though Alex and Ben were legally married under New York state law, DOMA prevented the federal government from acknowledging their union, directly impacting their ability to access federal benefits like joint tax filing.

• Spousal Benefits and Healthcare: In 2010, Maria and Sofia were legally married in California. Sofia worked for a federal agency and wanted to add Maria to her federal employee health insurance plan, a benefit typically available to spouses.

  Because of DOMA, the federal government did not recognize Maria and Sofia's marriage. Consequently, Sofia was unable to enroll Maria in her federal health insurance plan as a spouse. Maria had to seek her own, often more expensive, health insurance coverage, despite being legally married to a federal employee.

  This demonstrates how DOMA denied same-sex couples access to numerous federal benefits and protections. By defining "spouse" as only a person of the opposite sex, DOMA directly prevented same-sex partners from receiving spousal benefits, such as health insurance, that were readily available to opposite-sex married couples.

• Interstate Recognition and Family Rights: Prior to 2015, David and Michael were legally married in Massachusetts and had a child through adoption. They decided to move to a state like Florida, which at the time did not recognize same-sex marriage. While Florida's state laws were the immediate barrier, DOMA compounded the issue by providing federal backing for non-recognition.

  If David and Michael needed to interact with any federal agency in Florida, such as applying for federal housing assistance or certain Social Security benefits for their child where marital status was a factor, DOMA meant their marriage would not be recognized by the federal government, regardless of their Massachusetts marriage certificate. Furthermore, DOMA explicitly allowed Florida to refuse to acknowledge their Massachusetts marriage for state purposes, creating a patchwork of rights and recognition depending on where they lived.

  This example highlights both facets of DOMA: its federal definition of marriage and its provision allowing states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. Even if a couple was legally married in one state, DOMA ensured that neither the federal government nor other states were obligated to recognize that union, leading to significant legal uncertainty and denial of rights for families like David and Michael's.