DOMA History: How Did Such a Discriminatory Law Ever Pass?

The Supreme Court just came to a ruling in the case of United States v. Windsor, more commonly known as the case that could overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA's inception and passing were motivated primarily by two forces that are frequently both irrational and effective in the United States: fear and politics.

History

The article of DOMA being considered in the current Supreme Court case reads as follows:

Section 3. Definition of marriage

"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."

The question of marriage between two individuals of the same sex was hardly discussed until the 1980s, as the AIDS epidemic brought many LGBT activists, and therefore issues of significance to their community, into the spotlight. A tension still existed between those that rejected the societal "convention" of marriage and those who felt this position to be extreme, but the disadvantage that gay couples faced in issues like health, property, and insurance, to name a few, were becoming all too evident. The United States General Accounting Office estimates that over 1,000 federal statutes and provisions deal with or hinge upon an individual's status as "married" or not.

Political movement

In 1990, three same-sex Hawai'ian couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, meeting all requirements except that the partners be of opposite sexes. They subsequently initiated a lawsuit citing a violation of their constitutional rights. Although the Hawai'i Supreme Court did not declare the policy unconstitutional in the context of privacy laws, they did note that discrimination on the basis of sex violated equal protection rights unless the state could prove a compelling interest in preventing same-sex marriages.

Although the case took another six years to move through the court system and was eventually dismissed, it set off a wave of fear among opponents of same-sex marriage. The argument was that the issue presented a slippery slope: if Hawaii were to declare same-sex marriages constitutional, would other states soon be required to follow suit?

DOMA's passage

Introduced by Representatives Bob Barr (R-Ga.) and Don Nickles (R-Okla.), the legislation mandated that no state be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages, and defined marriage as a heterosexual union for the purposes of all federal legislation. Although some legislators spoke out against the bill, implying that it was a political move meant to excite the electorate four months before the 1996 elections, DOMA passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate. President Clinton, who personally opposed gay marriage but also opposed the passage of DOMA, nevertheless signed the bill into law to avoid political fallout like what he had experienced early on in his presidency over the issue gay and lesbians serving in the military.

The fate of DOMA

The issues raised by DOMA received varying levels of attention in the years following the Clinton presidency. Most recently, the Obama administration stated its support for the repeal of DOMA and instructed the Department of Justice not to defend it in any legal setting. Although this directive is distinct from enforcement — there are no directions to change enforcement policies unless the law is changed by Congress — it represents a highly unusual situation in which the arm of the Executive Branch responsible for doing so did not defend a piece of federal legislation in court. Instead, the House Republicans' Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group appointed counsel to defended DOMA in oral arguments before the Court this March.

The Supreme Court should recognize that the provision of DOMA in question in unconstitutional. When discussing the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, many people cite conflicting ideas of "what" marriage is — a religious institution, a societal construction, a state of living. When "marriage" is used to define benefits, rights, and other day-to-day realities that span intersecting parts of our personal and public lives, however, it loses its ability to be one-dimensional. It cannot be a wholly "religious institution" — or any other kind of institution — when it affects things like inheritance and health insurance, things that have nothing to do with religion.

This piece of legislation, clearly enacted by a perfect storm of politics and fear-mongering, represents another intolerable denial of rights to a minority group by the majority in power. We should have gotten rid of it long ago.

How much do you trust the information in this article?

Hetali Lodaya

Chemistry and public policy major interested in science policy, STEM, social entrepreneurship, and development. Interdisciplinary efforts a plus. Also always up for bhangra, NPR, or a good fantasy novel. NCSSM '10, UNC '14.

MORE FROM

20 attorneys general write letter urging Betsy DeVos to keep sexual assault protections

The attorneys general reminded DeVos that scrapping Title IX guidance will have a chilling effect on sexual assault and rape reporting rates.

New study suggests high workloads and aging doctor population means looming OB-GYN shortage

Obstetricians and gynecologists are overworked at nearing retirement age — without a younger contingent to replace them.

Why pro-life doctors want the First Amendment to protect their right to lie to patients

Crisis pregnancy centers believe they should be exempt from a law saying they should inform patients about all their medical options, including abortions.

‘Brown Girls’ wants to tell women of color’s stories in all their messy, complicated glory

Creators Fatimah Asghar and Sam Bailey want to let their characters break free of the neat identity categories people are wont to place them in.

One woman living in R Kelly’s alleged “sex cult” says everything is fine. That doesn’t mean it is.

Jocelyn Savage says she's "happy" and "totally fine" in her arrangement with R. Kelly. Experts say that's common behavior among abuse survivors.

Black women warned us about R Kelly's behavior for years. Was nobody listening?

Black women and girls have been telling people for years about the singer's behavior. And yet too few people have deigned to listen.

20 attorneys general write letter urging Betsy DeVos to keep sexual assault protections

The attorneys general reminded DeVos that scrapping Title IX guidance will have a chilling effect on sexual assault and rape reporting rates.

New study suggests high workloads and aging doctor population means looming OB-GYN shortage

Obstetricians and gynecologists are overworked at nearing retirement age — without a younger contingent to replace them.

Why pro-life doctors want the First Amendment to protect their right to lie to patients

Crisis pregnancy centers believe they should be exempt from a law saying they should inform patients about all their medical options, including abortions.

‘Brown Girls’ wants to tell women of color’s stories in all their messy, complicated glory

Creators Fatimah Asghar and Sam Bailey want to let their characters break free of the neat identity categories people are wont to place them in.

One woman living in R Kelly’s alleged “sex cult” says everything is fine. That doesn’t mean it is.

Jocelyn Savage says she's "happy" and "totally fine" in her arrangement with R. Kelly. Experts say that's common behavior among abuse survivors.

Black women warned us about R Kelly's behavior for years. Was nobody listening?

Black women and girls have been telling people for years about the singer's behavior. And yet too few people have deigned to listen.