Defense Of Marriage Act Services, Questions, Answers and News.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is legislation that was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.

Question: How is the Defense of Marriage act constitutional? Article IV, section I of the constitution states, "[f]ull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State". In other words, all states must respect the actions of the other states. But DOMA says that any state does not have to recognize any gay marriage that happened in any other state if it doesn't want to. Does anyone know why this law is constitutional?

Answer: You stopped your quote short. The Full Faith and Credit Clause reads in full: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." The second sentence arguably supports Congress' power to instruct states that they are not bound to give effect to gay marriages entered into elsewhere. But this even assumes that marriages fall under the clause. To fall under the clause, a marriage must be a public act, record, or judicial proceeding. Clearly, it's not an act (i.e., a statute) and it's unlikely to be held to be a judicial proceeding. Although many states involve judges or civil magistrates in their marriage process, marriages are not usually considered "proceedings," which more likely refer to trials, hearings, etc. Usually, you obtain a marriage license and then submit it to the agency in charge of them, after it's filled out by your officiate. But is a marriage a record? It would seem so. Interestingly, there's been no Supreme Court case saying a marriage is a record. And I don't purport to know what the framers meant when they used the phrase, but that would be your best argument. In any case, though, the second sentence of the clause probably gives Congress the power to pass DOMA, no matter how unwise a piece of legislation it is (and I agree it is).

Question: What exactly does repealing Section 3 in the Defense of Marriage Act mean? Does this legalize gay marriage in the US now?

Answer: No. It means that gay married couples in Massachusetts are to be treated equally under the law now. No more denial of Federal marriage benefits. The case will likely be appealed up to the 1st circuit court of appeals, and if we win there, then the ruling will apply to the entire 1st circuit. Then it will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court, and if we win there, then the ruling will apply to the entire Country. But the ruling only is that gay married couples cannot be treated differently for federal purposes than straight married couples. We still have a long way to go.

Question: Is the Defense of Marriage act unconstitutional? OK guys, let's forget whether or not you agree with homosexual marriage. It's irrelevant. Let's look strictly at the US Constitution. Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution (or the Full Faith and Credit Clause) says that states have to respect all of the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of any other state. However, the DOMA expressly lets states ignore homosexual marriages made in other states. So whether or not you agree with homosexual marriage, how can you not agree that this is unconstitutional?

Answer: I am not sure really. Ask the Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School grad ex President Bill Clinton why he signed an unconstitutional bill against gay marriage just to help win reelection?

Question: Why is the media failing to report Obama's support for the Defense of Marriage Act? and his 54 page brief saying that Same Sex marriage is equivalent to marriage between an uncle and a niece?

Answer: Because it does not further their agenda of liberal-ising America, They think they can brainwash the American public in to accepting what ever they write

Question: What rights does the Defense of Marriage Act take from same sex marriages? I guess I didn't phrase this question well. I know that through this act same couples of the same sex have no right to see each other on their death bed. This is the type of rights I am asking about.

Answer: There are over 1,000 federal rights that are taken away from same-sex couples by the Defense of Marriage Act. Here is a partial list from http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; and more.... It's important to note that even if you live in a state that has same-sex marriage laws, a same sex couple can't receive any of the FEDERAL benefits. Here is an example of how this directly impacts my family: Because we're a same sex couple, the portion of our health care costs that my partner's employer pays for me is reported on her W2 as income. Which means we're taxed on it. It costs us about $3,000 extra a year that a straight couple doesn't have to pay. Even in our state, where we're married.

Question: Who here thinks it's time to do away with the Defense of Marriage Act? I do, because who is the Federal government to decide which marriages it will and won't recognize based on purely Biblical and prejudiced reasons? I think Obama is wrong in opposing gay marriage and I am a Republican.

Answer: Hey look, I'm agreeing with a republican. You are right.

Question: What does the Defense of Marriage Act actually defend marriage from? It hasn't made a dent in the divorce rate.

Answer: It defends marriage from people who love each other formalizing that commitment and becoming, you know, married. So it protects marriage by ensuring that fewer devoted couples are actually able to get married. Yeah... um... I don't get it either. Maybe you have to be Christian or something to understand it - like that whole Trinity thing, or how God looks disfavourably on earthly riches, but could really use some cash.

Question: How can the writer and sponser of the Defense of Marriage Act? Run for president for a party who's platform includes repeal of said law.

Answer: Like it matters. This is Bob Barr, after all. No one will see his hypocrisy, and he'll still lose. And they won't see his hypocrisy, because no one is paying any attention to that fool (except for maybe you--but only to point out his hypocrisy).

Question: If Congress repeals the Defense of Marriage act, will states like Utah be forced to recognize legal same-sex? marriages that are legal in other states? Just curious.

Answer: No--the DOMA law only applies to Federal matters, such as filing a joint income-tax return. Most likely all of this will be decided by the Supreme Court--it could happen in one of several ways. One way would be if someone from, say, Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, moves to a state like Utah, where it isn't. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that every state recognize any contract entered into in any other state (i.e., you can't get out of paying for your car if you move to another state). In legal terms, marriage is a contract, and thus should be covered by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (This is how things played out, I think, with interracial marriage, which was at one time legal in some states but not in others. The case before the Supreme Court was called Loving vs. Loving--ironic, no?) DOMA might be overturned if someone from Massachusetts files a joint tax return for state taxes, and claims the right to file a joint Federal tax return as well. This is because marriage is also covered under the Constitution's statement that all matters not specifically delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states--and marriage is one of these things NOT specifically delegated to the Federal government. So, as marriage is a matter reserved to the states under the Constitution, the Federal government is constitutionally forbidden to meddle in who is allowed to get married--that makes DOMA unconstitutional. At this point, it's all really just a matter of time.

Question: Did you know that the "Defense of Marriage Act" was signed by Bill Clinton in 1996? It defines marriage only as the legal union of a man and a woman. It allows states to not recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states.

Answer: The media refuses to mention this though it's interesting that during the campaign both Obama and Biden came out against legalizing same sex marriage. I don't know why that isn't reported anymore.

Question: Obama says marriage is "one man and one woman", and now he says the Defense of Marriage Act? Should be overturned. Another flip-flop. Can that guy stick to any kind of principle, or does he just say whatever sounds cool at the moment?

Answer: uh...currently because of DOMA, Marriage is one man and one woman. Doesn't mean he doesn't think it should be overturned.

Question: Why are gays supporting Hillary if her husband happily signed the Defense of Marriage Act? the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gave states the right to refuse to recognize those married in other states.

Answer: Because in 1996 Congress wanted to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage and anything like it (i.e. Civil unions). This federal amendment would have been voted on by state legislatures (the same state legislatures that have passed state amendments banning same sex marriages and civil unions), and was almost assured of being passed by them. Since Bush became president, he has continually called for this amendment but nothing has been done because of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act took the wind out of the sails for those who oppose same sex unions and has allowed states to move forward while the federal government had lagged behind. The Defense of Marriage Act also allows recognition of same-sex marriages by the states the right to recognize those married in other states. Judging by the number of states that have passed state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage, it is a virtual certainty that without the Defense of Marriage Act there would be no same sex marriage in Massachusetts... and there would be no Civil Unions in Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire... there would be no Domestic Partnerships in California and Oregon... and there would be no state-level spousal rights in Hawaii, Maine, District of Columbia, or Washington... The Defense of Marriage Act separated the issue from Federal politics and by doing so has allowed the issue to move much further forward than it would have been able to do otherwise. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for LGBT people. Obama's support for LGBT people is as thin as the paper his speeches are written on. First there was Obama having Donnie McClurkin as a part of his campaign. McClurkin has said, in reference to gay people, "The gloves are off and if there's going to be a war, there's going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose? I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children." McClurkin has said "there are many other things to be done to break the curse of homosexuality." McClurkin has said that it is OK to hate gay people because God "hates the things that are purposed to destroy the ones He loves and are against His nature and design. He created me to be a whole man and to love one woman. Anything else is perversion of the male purpose." McClurkin has said "I believed that I was meant to be a whole man, made for one woman, and God brought it all about. I am delivered, and I know God can deliver others too." Second, there was Obama refusing to have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom had previously said that a Democratic Presidential candidate refused to be pictured with him while refusing to mention which candidate it was. Former S.F. Mayor Willie Brown later confirmed that it was Obama who did not want to be pictured with Newsom because Newson supports same sex marriage. Third, there is the Rev. James T. Meeks who Obama has called a "spiritual counsel." Meeks, an Obama delegate who served on Obama's exploratory committee for President, helped launch a petition for the Illinois Family Institute to clearly understand "the threat of gay marriage." The Southern Poverty Law Center named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement" last year. Fourth, when the gay newspaper Philadelphia Gay News asked for candidate interviews Clinton was the only candidate to agree. McCain declined the interview a few hours after being asked. Obama took 7 weeks to respond to the gay newspaper. Fifth, Clinton is the only remaining Presidential candidate to show a personal support for the LGBT community by marching in a gay pride parade (which she has done at least three times).

Question: What potential conflicts lie ahead regarding Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA)? this is from the perspective of the Constitution or Federalism. Also, What 3 options do Americans and the American government have for resolution?

Answer: First of all, DOMA interferes with the policies of the states in an area where the states are competent to legislate. Second, DOMA is pure pernicious discrimination against a despised minority. It advances absolutely no rational or legitimate federal interest.

Question: Why are gays supporing Hillary if her husban happily signed the Defense of Marriage Act? the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gave states the right to refuse to recognize those married in other states.

Answer: Because in 1996 Congress wanted to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage and anything like it (i.e. Civil unions). This federal amendment would have been voted on by state legislatures (the same state legislatures that have passed state amendments banning same sex marriages and civil unions), and was almost assured of being passed by them. Since Bush became president, he has continually called for this amendment but nothing has been done because of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act took the wind out of the sails for those who oppose same sex unions and has allowed states to move forward while the federal government had lagged behind. The Defense of Marriage Act also allows recognition of same-sex marriages by the states the right to recognize those married in other states. Judging by the number of states that have passed state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage, it is a virtual certainty that without the Defense of Marriage Act there would be no same sex marriage in Massachusetts... and there would be no Civil Unions in Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire... there would be no Domestic Partnerships in California and Oregon... and there would be no state-level spousal rights in Hawaii, Maine, District of Columbia, or Washington... The Defense of Marriage Act separated the issue from Federal politics and by doing so has allowed the issue to move much further forward than it would have been able to do otherwise. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for LGBT people. Obama's support for LGBT people is as thin as the paper his speeches are written on. First there was Obama having Donnie McClurkin as a part of his campaign. McClurkin has said, in reference to gay people, "The gloves are off and if there's going to be a war, there's going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose? I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children." McClurkin has said "there are many other things to be done to break the curse of homosexuality." McClurkin has said that it is OK to hate gay people because God "hates the things that are purposed to destroy the ones He loves and are against His nature and design. He created me to be a whole man and to love one woman. Anything else is perversion of the male purpose." McClurkin has said "I believed that I was meant to be a whole man, made for one woman, and God brought it all about. I am delivered, and I know God can deliver others too." Second, there was Obama refusing to have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom had previously said that a Democratic Presidential candidate refused to be pictured with him while refusing to mention which candidate it was. Former S.F. Mayor Willie Brown later confirmed that it was Obama who did not want to be pictured with Newsom because Newson supports same sex marriage. Third, there is the Rev. James T. Meeks who Obama has called a "spiritual counsel." Meeks, an Obama delegate who served on Obama's exploratory committee for President, helped launch a petition for the Illinois Family Institute to clearly understand "the threat of gay marriage." The Southern Poverty Law Center named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement" last year. Fourth, when the gay newspaper Philadelphia Gay News asked for candidate interviews Clinton was the only candidate to agree. McCain declined the interview a few hours after being asked. Obama took 7 weeks to respond to the gay newspaper. Fifth, Clinton is the only remaining Presidential candidate to show a personal support for the LGBT community by marching in a gay pride parade (which she has done at least three times).

Question: Is it time for Obama and Congress to repeal the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act"? Who are they defending it from? People who want to get married? wtf?

Answer: I do not think that the federal government should be regulating marriage at all. So, yes. It should be up to states to decide what marriages are legal for them. That being said, I also do not think that states should "marry" people because of its religious connotations -- straight or LGT. Rather, it should be called "civil unions" for all people who are married by the state, and I do think that LGTs should be granted civil unions.

Question: Shouldn't "small government" conservatives be against the Defense of Marriage Act? Since most conservatives hate having government tell people what to do, shouldn't they want this act repealed?

Answer: Marriage is a right granted by the state government, the federal government has no constitutional authority of "defending" or oppressing marriage there for this act is unconstitutional and illegal. Only the state government can grant the right for people to marry.

Question: Defense of Marriage Act Debate questions? i have a panel discussion tomorrow and i'm supposed to ask questions to both sides pertaining to the Defense of Marriage Act. Side A: The federal Government acted appropriately in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act Side B: The Defense of Marriage Act violated states rights which ever side you are on what are some questions to ask the opposing side regarding STATES' RIGHTS?

Answer: The States can opt in or out of it. There is very little violation of State's rights. The issue to some is that the Federal Govt won't recognize the marriage that a State recognizes. Then some argue that ALL States should have to recognize what SOME States recognize. Well we could get in to a much longer argument there. For instance Megan's Law(the Sex Offender list basically). In PA the burden of proof that you will be a Sex Offender in the future falls on the State. In most States it falls on the defendant, or at least it used to. So not all States have the same recognition of the same laws. Also what about taking a minor across State lines. Even if both States have an age of consent at 16 it would be illegal to cross State lines for sex if the person is under 18, isn't that a violation of State's rights then? You are failing to recognize the State's age of consent when someone crossed a border where BOTH Age of Consents are the same. You ask why cross State lines then, but hey it's close to the border of the two States and the people live on opposite sides(I don't know but it can happen). So I'd be asking why people think it is violating State's rights, ARMED WITH KNOWLEDGE why it shouldn't be considered to. I mean if you just ask why it is they will give you their answer and sound right, but if you point out things that also "violate State's rights" that no one questions then they will have to give a REAL answer.

Defense Of Marriage Act

Defense Of Marriage Act Related Products and News