Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Defense of Marriage Act

 
US History Encyclopedia: Defense of Marriage Act
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia

President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) at 12:50 A.M. on 21 September 1996. It permitted any state to refuse recognition to any same-sex marriage performed in any other state. It also defined "marriage" as exclusively the union of one man and one woman for all purposes under federal law. Clinton signed it almost surreptitiously because he had won considerable lesbian/gay support in 1992 and hoped to do so again in 1996, but he feared the political cost of not opposing same-sex marriages.

A gay couple in Minneapolis first challenged the prohibition on same-sex marriages in 1970. Courts routinely dismissed such cases until 1993, when the Hawaii state supreme court, in Baehr v. Levin, found that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitutional prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex. Along with similar decisions in Alaska and Vermont, the Hawaii case led conservative activists to push for state laws prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages.

The federal law reflected both conservative opposition to same-sex marriages and Republicans' desire to create political problems for President Clinton during an election year. The Defense of Marriage Act remains controversial, as lesbian/gay civil rights activists continue to push for same-sex marriage.

Bibliography

Cain, Patricia A. Rainbow Rights: The Role of Lawyers and Courts in the Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights Movement. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 2000.

Chambers, David L. "Couples: Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership." In Creating Change: Sexuality, Public Policy, and Civil Rights. Edited by John D'Emilio, William B. Turner, and Urvashi Vaid. New York: St. Martin's, 2000.

Eskridge, William L. Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

—William B. Turner

Search unanswered questions...

Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics

Act of Congress:

Defense of Marriage Act (1996)

Top
Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Acts of Congress

Excerpt from the Defense of Marriage Act

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or inter pretation 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 wife.

The choice of law provision

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 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (P.L. 104-199; 110 Stat. 2419) denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and authorizes the states to deny such recognition as well. The act has two provisions. One of these defines marriage, for federal purposes, as exclusively heterosexual, thereby depriving same-sex couples of all the federal benefits to which other married couples are entitled. The other provision authorizes individual states to ignore same-sex marriages when they are performed in other states.

The constitutional basis for the provision that defines marriage is simply Congress's power to define the terms of a federal statute. The second provision relies on the "full faith and credit clause" of Article IV, sec. 1, of the U.S. Constitution. This clause, after requiring states to give "full faith and credit" to one another's acts and judicial proceedings, provides that "Congress may by General Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

DOMA was enacted after a 1993 decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court strongly suggested that the state would make same-sex marriage legal. (After DOMA was enacted, the state court's decision was overturned by an amendment to the state constitution.) States usually recognize marriages celebrated in other states, and the federal government usually defers to each state's definition of marriage. But neither of these rules has been understood to be a constitutional requirement. Opponents of same-sex marriage feared that recognition of same-sex marriage would damage the institution of marriage in the United States, and so sought, through DOMA, to create an exception to these ordinary rules. Those who opposed DOMA, noting the unprecedented nature of the federal legislation, thought that it was an unconstitutional abuse of the Article IV power. These opponents emphasized that Congress was responding to a "problem" that did not exist, since no state then recognized same-sex marriages.

DOMA has played an important role in state courts since Vermont recognized the legality of same-sex unions. Vermont Civil Unions, created by statute in 2000, have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the name. State courts have cited DOMA when denying recognition to Vermont Civil Unions. For example, Lofton v. Kearney, a 2001 Florida ruling, states that DOMA "precludes homosexuals who marry in other states from being recognized by Florida as a legal union."

Citations such as these, however, appear to rest on an error of law. The full faith and credit clause has never been interpreted to require states to recognize marriages celebrated in other states that are contrary to the public policy of the particular state. DOMA is, in fact, irrelevant to almost any question that is likely to come before a court. The Supreme Court has interpreted the full faith and credit clause to constrain state courts only when the state would violate parties' due process rights by applying its own law to the case.

The Defense of Marriage Act is one episode in a continuing cultural and political battle over the status of same-sex couples. Republican Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, one of the original sponsors of DOMA, argued that, because marriage is already traditionally understood to be exclusively heterosexual, the law "merely reaffirm[s] what is already known, what is already in place" (Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., Hearing on Defense of Marriage Act, July 11, 1996). Opponents argue that, if the exclusive heterosexuality of marriage were that obvious, there would have been no need for the statute.

Bibliography

Koppelman, Andrew. "Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Unconstitutional." Iowa Law Review 83, no. 1 (1997): 94–140.

Koppelman, Andrew. The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Wikipedia: Defense of Marriage Act
Top
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Wikipedia
 This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (March 2009)
"DOMA" redirects here. For the metabolite of norepinephrine, see 3,4-Dihydroxymandelic acid.
Defense of Marriage Act
US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg
Full title Defense of Marriage Act
Acronym / colloquial name DOMA
Enacted by the 104th United States Congress
Citations
Public Law 104-199
Stat. 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)
Codification
Legislative history
Major amendments

Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

  1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
  2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Four states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont) currently allow same-sex marriage (with New Hampshire having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted state-level statutes to the same effect.

Contents

Text

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:

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.

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.[3]

Legal history

In the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin (name later changed to Baehr v. Miike[4]), the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. This prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage that the state might legalize it, and that eventually other states would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. The Defense of Marriage Act is designed to prevent states from being required to recognize the marriage of same-sex couples in other states.

The Defense of Marriage Act was authored by then Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, on September 21, 1996, after moving through a legislative fast track and overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."[5] Barr has since apologized for his sponsorship of the DOMA and thinks it should be repealed,[6] saying it violates the principles of federalism.[7]

The legislative history of the bill asserts authority to enact the law under Article IV Sec. 1, which grants Congress power to determine "the effect" of such full faith and credit. Proponents made clear their purpose to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level, while still allowing each state to decide individually whether to recognize same-sex unions from other states. Opponents have questioned whether the power asserted extends so far as to permit non-recognition altogether, have argued that the law is unconstitutionally vague by leaving out essential details, and assert a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Although Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law during his re-election campaign in 1996 and opposed same-sex marriage, he did not mention the law (or the controversy surrounding it) in his 2004 memoir, My Life.[8][dead link]

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."[9] Over time, Clinton's personal views on same-sex marriage have shifted. During an address to the Campus Progress National Conference, delivered on July 8, 2009, in Washington D.C., Clinton reportedly said: "I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [gay marriage]."[10] Clinton, however, added that he doesn't believe that it is a "federal question", stating, "I think all these states that do it should do it."[11]

President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of DOMA.[12][13] However, on June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States of America, suggesting a sharp reversal by the Obama administration.[14] This measure drew much anger from organizations in favor of same-sex marriage such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Empowering Spirits Foundation, especially for the brief's specific arguments.[15][16] On June 15, 2009, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese sent a four page letter to President Barack Obama in response to the Department of Justice brief, in which he laid out the case of LGBT people as equal human beings and urged, "We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress.[17]

On September 15, 2009, representatives Jerry Nadler of New York, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jared Polis of Colorado introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA. The bill had 91 original cosponsors.[18]

Constitutionality

The constitutional issues most relevant to DOMA are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned with the "definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'" section of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is primarily concerned with the "powers reserved to the states" section of DOMA.

A fundamental right to marriage — at least "marriage" defined as one man and one woman — overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of this power is disputed.

Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds:

Supporters of DOMA argue that the act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the due process clause of the United States Constitution.

Federal Courts that have heard direct challenges to DOMA have agreed with supporters of DOMA on these points (See: In re Kandu[20], 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004) and Wilson v Ake 18 FLW Fed D 175 (2005)).

In 2009, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt declared DOMA unconstitutional in a case where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson.[21] As an employee of the federal judiciary, Levenson is prohibited from suing in federal court. Hence this case was handled by Reinhardt in his capacity as a dispute resolution official.

On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a Federal Court challenge, Gill v. OPM based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government's heretofore consistent deference to each state's definition of marriage. It questions only the DOMA provision that the federal government does not have to recognize same-sex marriages.[22][23]

Several challenges[citation needed] to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but so far the Court has declined to review any such case. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages,[citation needed] as only Iowa,[24] California, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.

On March 9, 2009, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States of America in Orange County, California, seeking to reverse DOMA and Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.[25] On June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA.[26]

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a suit, Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."[27]

DOMA and state legislation

Since the passage of DOMA, there has been an increased focus on the variety among states with regard to the legal status of same-sex marriage. Some states have proactively, by legislation or referendum, determined that they will not recognize same-sex marriages.[28]

Opponents of same-sex marriage assert that the issue should be decided by a simple majority in a single election or through the legislative process, rather than by the judiciary in its interpretation of the constitution.

Gay rights advocates, conversely, feel that not even legislative action or a popular majority can deny a minority a fundamental right. Since the United States system of checks and balances leaves it to the judiciary branch to protect the fundamental rights of minority groups against the tyranny of the majority, advocates believe that the judiciary should strike down gender-restrictive marriage laws in the same way it struck down racially-restrictive marriage laws.

Currently Connecticut,[29] Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont are the only states that allow marriages between persons of the same sex, although they will also be permitted in New Hampshire as of January 2010. California legalized same-sex marriage on June 16, 2008,[30] but on November 8, 2008, voters passed a proposition to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.[31]

New York and Washington DC recognize such marriages from other jurisdictions. Other states may recognize such a marriage as a civil union or domestic partnership (Nevada, California,[32] and New Jersey).

Some states recognize civil unions to represent same-sex relationships, considering them equivalent to marriage. Other states (including Nevada) have domestic partnerships in place to grant same-sex relationships some of the benefits the state bestows on married couples. However, there are procedural differences such as differing age limitations (in many states, the legal age to marry is 16, while the legal age to enter into a domestic partnership is 18), residential requirements (married individuals are not required to live in the same residence with their spouse, while domestic partners are required to share a residence, although in states such as Nevada such co-residency may be part-time).[33]

A majority of the states, including those that have some benefits for same-sex relationships, have restricted recognition of marriage to unions of one man and one woman in state law, have some law defining marriage as such, or have an amendment to their state constitution to that effect. As of April 2009, 29 states have enacted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and another 13 states have statutory bans (this includes Maine, which has approved a same-sex marriage bill that was subject to referendum in the United States general elections, 2009. The referendum failed, keeping same-sex marriage illegal in the state).[28]

Repeal Attempts

On September 15, 2009, Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler from New York introduced legislation called the Respect for Marriage Act to repeal DOMA. The bill has 91 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives.[34] However, gay statesmen Barney Frank and John Berry do not support RFMA, stating that "the backbone is not there" in Congress. Frank and Berry suggest that it would be quicker to overturn DOMA through lawsuits such as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders[35][36]

See also

References

  1. ^ "On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3396)". United States Senate. 1996-09-10. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  2. ^ "Final vote results for roll call 316". United States House of Representatives. 1996-07-12. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  3. ^ "Defense of Marriage Act". United States Government Printing Office. 1996-09-21. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  4. ^ "State of Hawaii Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law, Chapter 2 Footnotes". State of Hawaii. 1995. http://hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts95/sol/cpt2ftn.html. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  5. ^ "Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis
  6. ^ Richardson, Valerie (May 26, 2008). "Barr tops 9 others for Libertarian nod". Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/26/barr-tops-9-others32for-libertarian-nod/print/. 
  7. ^ "U.S. Moves To Dismiss Gay Marriage Case". CBS News. Associated Press. June 12, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/12/national/main5084328.shtml. 
  8. ^ Clinton book sidesteps gay events, issues
  9. ^ Moss, J. Jennings. Bill Clinton interview, 1996. The Advocate. June 25, 1996. Archived by Wayback Machine.
  10. ^ Galloway, Jim (July 14, 2009). "Bill Clinton drops opposition to same-sex marriage". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/07/14/bill-clinton-drops-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway. 
  11. ^ Tracey, Michael (July 14, 2009). "Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage". The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/tracey. 
  12. ^ Barack Obama on LGBT Rights
  13. ^ Open Letter from Barack Obama Concerning LGBT Equality
  14. ^ "Obama Admin Moves To Dismiss Defense Of Marriage Act Challenge". Huffington Post. 2009-06-12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-antigay-def_n_214764.html. Retrieved 2009-06-12. 
  15. ^ "Gay Blogosphere Erupts Over Obama's DOMA Defense". On Top Magazine. 2009-06-12. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4002&MediaType=1&Category=26. Retrieved 2009-06-12. 
  16. ^ "ESF Condemns Obama for Defending Defense of Marriage Act" (PDF). Empowering Spirits Foundation Press Release. 2008-06-12. http://www.empoweringspirits.org/PRDocServer/DOMA_Obama_Defense_061209.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-12. 
  17. ^ Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese Letter to Obama on DOMA, June, 15, 2009 "Open Letter to President Obama" (PDF). Human Rights Campaign. 2008-06-15. http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Solmonese-letter-to-Obama-re-DOMA-brief-June-15-2009.pdf. Retrieved 2009-09-07. 
  18. ^ Eleveld, Kerry (2009-09-15). "Respect for Marriage Act Debuts". The Advocate. http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Washington_D_C_/Respect_for_Marriage_Act_Debuts/. Retrieved 2009-09-15. 
  19. ^ "DOMA Complaint" (PDF). http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/press/2009_07_08_doma_complaint.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  20. ^ "Kandu Bankruptcy Decision" (PDF). http://www.domawatch.org/cases/9thcircuit/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  21. ^ "Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional". Los Angeles Times. 2009-02-09. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  22. ^ Goodnough, Abby; Zezima, Katie (2009-03-02). "Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  23. ^ ""DOMA" Means Federal Discrimination Against Married Same-Sex Couples". GLAD. http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit. 
  24. ^ Davey, Monica (2007-09-01). "Iowa Permits Same-Sex Marriage, for 4 Hours, Anyway". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/us/01iowa.html. 
  25. ^ "Smelt v. United States of America Notice of Removal". United States District Court - Southern Division. http://www.scribd.com/doc/15097245/Smelt-v-United-States-of-America-Notice-of-Removal. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  26. ^ "Obama Angers Gays With Marriage Law Defense". San Francisco Chronicle. 2009-06-12. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/12/MND5186EV8.DTL&tsp=1. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  27. ^ Finucane, Martin (2009-07-08). "Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act". Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  28. ^ a b Statewide Marriage Prohibitions
  29. ^ Judge Clears Way For Same-Sex Marriages
  30. ^ "California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases" (PDF). 2008-06-04. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR31-08.PDF. Retrieved 2008-06-04. 
  31. ^ "Election Results: State Ballot Measures". 2008-11-07. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm. 
  32. ^ http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/10/12/daily8.html
  33. ^ [1]
  34. ^ Nadler, Baldwin and Polis Introduce the Respect for Marriage Act to Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
  35. ^ Frank Will Not Support DOMA Repeal
  36. ^ Johnson, Chris (2009-09-28). "Berry- ENDA should be LGBT priority". Washington Blade. http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27385. Retrieved 2009-09-28. 

Bibliography

  • Feigen, Brenda. “Same-Sex Marriage: An Issue of Constitutional rights not Moral Opinions.” 2004. 27 Harv. Women’s L. J. 345.
  • “Litigating the Defense of Marriage Act: The Next Battleground for Same-Sex Marriage.” 2004. 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2684.
  • Manning, Jason (2004-04-30). "Backgrounder: The Defense of Marriage Act". The Online News Hour. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/act.html. Retrieved 2007-01-13. 
  • “Same Sex Marriage in the U.S.” About.com. 2005. About, Inc. 1 June 2004.
  • “Same Sex Marriage Passage” CQ Weekly. Congressional Quarterly. 2 May 2005.
  • United States. 104th Congress. Defense of Marriage Act. House of Representatives Committee Report. 1996.
  • Wardle, Lynn D. “A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Claims for Same Sex Marriage.” 1996. 1996 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1.

External links

Search Wikisource Wikisource has original text related to this article:
v • d • e
Same-sex unions in the United States
Same-sex marriage legalized:
Same-sex marriage recognized, but not performed:
Civil unions legalized:
Domestic partnerships legalized:
Same-sex marriage prohibited by statute:
Same-sex marriage prohibited by
constitutional amendment:
All or comprehensive same-sex unions prohibited by
constitutional amendment:
Recognition of same-sex unions undefined
by statute or constitutional amendment:
Notes:
*California only recognizes same-sex marriages that were entered into prior to November 5, 2008
**The laws authorizing civil unions in Connecticut will be repealed effective October 1, 2010. Any civil unions entered into prior to that date will automatically become marriages, by operation of law, effective October 1, 2010.
***The laws authorizing civil unions in New Hampshire will be repealed effective January 1, 2010. Any civil unions entered into prior to that date will automatically become marriages, by operation of law, effective January 1, 2011.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

 
 

 

Copyrights:

US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.  Read more
Act of Congress. Major Acts of Congress. Copyright © 2004 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Defense of Marriage Act".  Read more