Defense Marriage Act Analysis

The BLAG argues that the Court should apply the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, because the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community is not a protected class. Since all parties agree the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, the court argues there is no injury to Congress if DOMA is overturned, that BLAG violates the separation of powers, and that no Article III controversy exists. There are many social implications for the DOMA but BLAG agues it serves a federal interest by preserving traditional marriage to encourage responsible procreation. Proponents of DOMA believe marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers—parents with differentiated roles that are not interchangeable. BLAG claims responsible procreation is at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage because of the inextricable link between marriage and children. Those opposed to DOMA argue it is bad social policy and claim that all Americans—regardless of their sexual orientation—deserve the rights afforded to their peers because all are contributing members of society. They also argue that burdens placed on members of the LGBT community are based on harmful stereotypes with no basis in the individuals’ abilities. Concerns from the federal system are proponents of DOMA claim the law protects states’ sovereignty and neither creates a federalism problem nor hinders state autonomy. DOMA ensures states can independently decide to refuse same-sex marriages because DOMA allows each state to define marriage for itself under state law, and does not allow any state’s definition to eclipse another’s. Those opposed to DOMA claim Congress disregarded federalism

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).

Issue: It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One of the Republican congresspersons who helped write the act is currently opposing it. In Lehman's words, "many Republicans believe it's only a matter of time until DOMA is repealed," (cited by Bendery, 2012, p. 2). Therefore, it would be wise for the president to take an affirmative, and firm, stances in favor of legislation that expressly and unequivocally supports marriage equality. If the president takes a firm stance on this issue, you will be lauded for your decisive action rather than passive response to the ongoing debate. Lehman, a republican, notes the irony of being "politically to the left of Obama" on this issue (cited by Bendery, 2012, p. 2). You are known for having an "evolving" stance on the issue (Bendery, 2012, p. 2). A firmer stance on the issue of marriage equality would work to the president's favor in the 2012 elections this November. Because the president is celebrated for his open-mindedness and willingness to listen to all points of view, the following outline of opposing viewpoints should help. This outline will also help the president formulate cohesive responses to opposition to the proposed marriage equality bill. Each opposing viewpoint is countered by cogent arguments.

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

The year is 2015 and I can’t imagine not having the freedom I do today. Marriage equality is a very recent topic in history. It wasn’t very long ago that laws prohibited the marriage of same-sex couples. I have decided to investigate the history of marriage equality and the organizations that helped make the dream come true. In order to fully understand the changes that occurred, and to comprehend the level of discrimination that was felt in the homosexual culture, one must first understand the history of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer) community. The harsh history of the LGBTQ community, and discrimination that was imposed on them and the organizations that strived to advocate for the LGBTQ community on a local, regional and national level is what eventually lead to the Supreme Court ruling on June 26th, 2015, stating that states cannot ban same-sex marriage.

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).

Unlike gender, race, age, religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation anti-discrimination still vary by state. Until 2009, a 1969 federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or ethnicity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. In 2013, in United States v Windsor, The Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating that it violated the equal protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision by Justice Kennedy, The Court stated, “Careful consideration” had to be given to “discriminations of unusual character.” On June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriage throughout out the United States. This case actually made Missouri's Constitution null and void, because Missouri's Constitution directly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, discriminating against same-sex

On June 26, 2013, The United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enabling same-sex couples legally married under state law to be recognized for the purpose and benefit of federal law. Section 3 of DOMA previously defined marriage as the legal union of two persons of the opposite sex. This definition was challenged in several court cases for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edith Windsor in U.S. v. Windsor, declaring DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and allowing same-sex couples to be recognized as married for federal purposes. This opens up several opportunities within federal income tax and estate and gift tax. Some of these benefits include higher standard deductions and gain exclusion; opportunity to lower tax bracket through combining incomes; and entitlement to the marital deduction, gift splitting, and portability of DSUE. Marriage also results in tax disadvantages such as the marriage penalty, joint and several liability, and refund offsetting. Taxpayers and tax preparers should be aware of the new planning opportunities available to married same-sex couples,

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

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.

In defense of marriage by John Corny, President Bill Clinton and the government were able to approve the defense of marriage act (DOMA). DOMA is defined as the union of a man and a woman which it was what mostly of the people consider to be right. The main question is if people should continue this or change? The answer is that many activists have been trying to change that definition. This changes has already begun in many states of the country , and those who supported DOMA long time ago, are not able to support marriage today. There is one thing that has never become different, it is how people think a kid is best raised by a woman and a man. However, today marriage appears to be in a general agreement that is being complicated.

DOMA basically says the United Stated will not support a homosexual union, but each states’ government can decide for themselves, their stand on marriage (Defense of Marriage Act.). DOMA does two things, one is it defines marriage in federal law and two it enables states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states (Gacek). Sadly, the U.S Supreme Court and the Obama Administration ruled it unconstitutional. However, DOMA is still law due to the unsuccessful attempts to appeal it. This world is not fair and there will be discrimination no matter the outcome.

For this journal entry, I have decided to review the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in 2009, as a repeal to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which deems that the federal government does not recognize marriages of same sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act was then reintroduced in 2015. The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29)., amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state,

Legalizing and controlling same-sex marriage has been a battle since the early 2000s in the United States. On November 18, 2003 same sex marriage was legalized for the first time in the United States by Massachusetts. Hearing of the legalization, many same-sex couples from other states arrived in Massachusetts to finalize their marriage. Unfortunately, when the couples returned to their home states the documents were not recognized as legal under the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA). The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DoMA stated that same-sex marriage should be reconconized as illegal. After

Section 1: The first major law that affected same-sex marriage was the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. DOMA defined that marriage was between a man and a woman at the federal level. It also gave states the right to reject recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. “DOMA mandates unequal treatment of legally married same-sex couples, selectively depriving them of the 1,138+ protections and responsibilities that marriage triggers at the federal level.” (Freedom to Marry) At the time DOMA was passed, no states permitted gays and lesbians to marry. On June 26, 2013, in Windsor v. United States, “Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples.” (Savage) When the ruling was declared, twelve states and the District of Columbia legally recognized