Talk:Defense of Marriage Act/Archive 1

Public Policy Exception
Article fails to mention "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. B 18:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no public policy exception to the Full Faith & Credit Clause. See Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998).  This article states the contrary -- "The Supreme Court has long recognized a "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit clause" -- and should be edited to reflect the current law.  However, because the Full Faith & Credit Clause generally only applies to state judgments, and a marriage liscence is not a judgment, Full Faith and Credit has not traditionally been given to marriage licenses. Gregoryc July 22, 2004

True, the majority opinion of the court states, "this Court's decisions support no roving "public policy exception" to the full faith and credit due judgments" (emphasis added), BUT there is a public policy exception nonetheless. Merely citing Baker vs GM in which the justices unanimously agreed as to the ultimate decision but in which only 5 (a bare majority) of the justices concurred in it's rationale is problematic; it ignores that jurists and scholars have referred to a "public policy exception" in their analyses of the Supreme Court's inconsistency on this point including the inconsistency in the majority court's opinon in Baker. (Unfortunately "law" is not always consistent, unambiguous or clear, if it ever has even any of these qualities.) To build upon your last comment, Gregoryc, and for clarification to others: the phrase "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of the FF&C clause is commonly interpreted to mean judgments (as opposed to laws)--application of FF&C generally distinguishes between FF&C in regard to state laws and FF&C given to state judgments. It is held by legal experts that: The problem with this judgment/law distinction is how is it possible to give FF&C to the judgments of one state in a separate state without also giving FF&C to its laws. When the FF&C clause is inapplicable, jurists and scholars have referred to this as a "public policy exception" although this could be considered a misnomer since how could there be an exception if it doesn't even apply. On the other hand, given the court's (inconsistent) rationale, it could make sense to explain that what is really going on is that the court is applying a "public policy exception" by deed if not in word (rationale). Read Baker and the other cases on this point and judge for yourself. The article should reflect Gregoryc's comments and mine more explicitly...you non-lawyers, don't be to shy to work our comments into the article. &mdash;B|Talk 16:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * (1) in regard to state laws, the FF&C clause does not apply, is not controlling or in other words state laws do not fall within the scope or purview of the FF&C clause--FF&C does not need to be given by one state to a separate state's laws; and
 * (2) in regard to enforcing judgments of one state in a separate state, the FF&C clause governs and FF&C generally must be given by one state to the judgments of another state.


 * As a side note, as the same-sex marriage cases ripen for judicial review, the Supreme Court will address the same-sex marriage issues relating to the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses before addressing the FF&C issue if it even addresses the FF&C issue at all. If the Supreme Court recognizes no right to same sex marriage under the EP and DP clauses, only then will it address FF&C issues. Presuming no pre-emptive federal amendment, if the Supreme Court does not recognize a right to same sex marriage under either the EP or DP clauses, it is also not likely that the court will mandate that such marriages be recognized under the FF&C clause in states which prohibit them.  &mdash;B|Talk 16:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have added some general information regarding the 14th amendment applications on DOMA. I am not sure what the public policy exception is referring to in the full faith and credit however there is the clause that allows Congress to prescribe the manner in which such laws under the FF&C are proved, which I will be adding 71.107.82.58 03:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)ratherhaveaheart

Marriage Protection Act
This article perhaps should cover this legislation that was just passed by the House. No matter what anyone thinks of "same-sex marriage", this legislation seeks to bar access to federal courts by a segment of the American people. Clearly unconstitutional, and merely a ploy to delay a plausibly inevitable reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act by the Supreme Court. -- Stevietheman 19:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Not following the Constitution? How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! -- 69.19.2.225 13:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Art.III §2 Clause 2 (as refered above) refers to the jurisdiction of the supreme court, not the entire Federal Judiciary. And then only as to what manner of jurisdiction, appellate or original, the court has. The Congress cannot simply declare certain controversies outside the purview of the court. --Charonn0 05/18/05 18:44 PDT

Constitutionality and "some...others"
The section Constitutionality has become pretty bad with the "some say...others argue" sort of debate. This generally looks pretty messy, and doesn't help with the article's credibility, which is basically my way of asking if maybe the editors representing these points of view in the article would be kind enough to say exactly who says and exactly who argues, or to give examples of specific groups who make these statements. -Seth Mahoney 02:29, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Some additional things to consider: The impact of Romer v Evans and the varying tests the amendment could face (notably O'Connor's occurence as a substantiation of the right to protect, but not as a factor limiting). The recognition of the current Human Rights treaties which are intended to allow even polygamy. --Ynsaen 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The last line of the "Constitutionality" section ('With most states deciding for themselves the status of gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act may have largely become moot.') is misleading and, I would argue, wholly inaccurate. No matter how many states legalize gay marriage, DOMA still precludes the possibility of defining "marriage" or "spouse" as anything other than "one man, one woman" in a federal statute. As such, same-sex couples, even if legally married for state law purposes, will still be denied legal status under ERISA provisions, the Internal Revenue Code, or any other federal statute. A heterosexual couple can still utilize the unlimited marital deduction (wholly tax-free transfer of assets between spouses), but DOMA's continued existence precludes such a transfer as between two men or two women. Nothing in this section, or in the entry as a whole, justifies the closing sentence of this section. TShultz (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not the DOMA that allows states to decide for themselves? And if DOMA is repealed, could that event not leave states with less rights than they have now? Would that event not further move our federal government toward the type of unitary government, one plagued with centralized power, that our founding fathers wished to avoid? Our nation's future executive has promised to repeal the DOMA, and it may be well said that DOMA will be largely moot becuase there will be no states' defense of marriage acts. --ElderHap (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe a repeal of the DOMA would thereby reduce rights to anyone. Every State Constitution has a clause that the people have all the rights and political power, and the Constitution itself specifies a very limited # of powers granted to the Federal and to the States, and DOMA is really a clarifier; although it also attempts to limit Federal benefits/liabilities conferred to one group from another group (illegal).  Rights cannot be vested away, voted away or sold, even by the people themselves.Ol Murrani Kasale (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Format
I just nuked a very poorly formatted info-dump copied directly from Same-sex marriage in the United States. It discussed the issue in general, but had little to do with the Act itself. Now then, I don't suppose there's any chance of adding how marriage is supposed to be threatened? --Kizor 14:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The Mormons have invested millions into convincing people that gay marriage leads to gay children and other "gross" things. 24.98.65.137 (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DOMA first federal definition of marriage?
A question that intrigues me, and that will be good for shedding light on the federalism/state rights angle of this debate: did DOMA constitute the first time that the US federal government came up with a legislated definition of marriage for the purposes of the federal government? In other words, before DOMA, was any marraige recognized by a US state a legal marriage for federal purposes? Are the same-sex marriages currently being recognized in Mass. the first marriages in the US recognized by a state but not the federal government? --Jfruh 15:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as statutes are concerned I think this is the first marriage def. There US Supreme Cases that define marriage including Loving v Virginia, which may be referenced. There is definately some fed influence on the def of marriage especially concerning the statehood of Utah. 71.107.82.58 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)ratherhaveaheart

Article Structure
I have done some significant reorganization on this article to put similar arguments together. I think that the Legal History should immediately follow the text and either the Constitutionality arguments should be within the legal history or all of the arguments should follow. I also question whether the information regarding the San Francisco events are even relevent to this article or if they should be deleted, but I will wait for input before I delete that subsection. I think that this somewhat chronological structure is easiest way for someone to learn about a statute. Ratherhaveaheart 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I don't think the SF marriages are particularly relevant here. DOMA is about the federal government's definition of marriage, and states' rights to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other jurisdictions, neither of which has anything directly to do with California's decision to recognize same-sex marriage (or not). --Jfruh (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then away it goes, I think it may confuse people if it is left. Ratherhaveaheart 17:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a structure issue but I wasn't sure where else to put it: the final paragraph in the introduction is highly confusing in regards to the numbers of states and where they stand on this issue. Obviously there is some overlap (states holding more than one of these positions) but the overall impression is one of lots of numbers that can't be reconciled with each other. Retswerb (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Studs Application
I'm not quite sure how valuable the statement is to the article as a whole. Rather than a somewhat random example of how DOMA affects people maybe a more generalized listing would be more appropriate. For instance: "Under DOMA same sex couples do not receive (insert a number of federal benefits)." Ratherhaveaheart 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section (and copied it below for comment) on the grounds that it is essentially trivia, and is insufficiently specific to source. What specific benefits were claimed and which were denied? Were there any other grounds for the denial? Properly-sourced information on how many people are denied benefits, which benefits they are denied and how much money is involved would be far more informative. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Application
The Defense of Marriage act enabled the federal government to deny benefits to the surviving same-sex spouse of former U.S. Representative Gerry Studds.

Studs NOT the first
I just deleted an anonymous addition that said that the denial of Congressional pension benefits to Studds' husband was the "first" use of this law. Clearly this is not the case. Gay couples married in MA have been treated by the Federal government as not married in regards to such federal matters as federal income tax, immigration, and so on for the last two years, all due to DOMA. While this is perhaps a particularly high-profile example, it's not the first one. --Jfruh (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was the human rights in the united states category removed from this article? This article should be at least as well-linked as interracial marriage! 24.98.65.137 (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DOMA proponents counter...
"Opponents claim the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment introduces an issue of discrimination against the same sex couples. However, DOMA proponents counter gays have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have."

I added in this:

"A problem with this is that the same argument can apply to mixed-race marriage, which have been made legal."

It is a valid objection, however, I'm not sure if it is appropriate to add it due to the NPoV rules of Wikipedia. So I added this Talk section.

The reasoning behidn the problem I proposed is that the same argument can be used against interracial marriage-- after all, black people would have tghe same rights to marry as white people, just as gays, under this argument, have the same rights to marry the opposite sex as straight people. --Melissia 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm removing that statement as WP:OR; if you'd like to re-ad it, please find someone you can source someone who makes that point. I think that adding inline citations to the 'Constitutionality' section would go a long way towards reducing the "this side says this"/"that side says that" nature of the article, incidentally. GertrudeTheTramp 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I will remove the whole thing, rather than just one part of it. After all under taht reasoning... since none of the arguments are sited, all of them are origonal research-- and it's very misleading to state taht "everyone has the same right to marry those of the opposite sex" when that argument was once used to prevent interracial marriage, and was defeated on the basis of equal rights.    --Melissia 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that DOMA enshrines discrimination into law is well attested. See, for example, Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate (citation in section below).  I've heard the response indicated (can marry someone of the opposite sex) on Trinity Broadcasting, so its probably sourcable, although not from any of the current references SFAIK.  Whether the point/counter is important enough to mention is another matter. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim itself might be (is) well attested, but Melissia made it clear that her placement of it there was OR-- it is the "problem she proposed." That said, I guess the bigger issue that I missed by being a bit too citation obsessed was that it's pretty clearly POV in a way that the first part of the paragraph (which she then removed) wasn't; there are plenty of people who would argue that her comparison isn't a 'problem' as it is invalid. (The issues go hand in hand, however, if it wasn't OR, it would be sourced in some way in the sentence, resolving those pesky POV problems.) Depending on your way of looking at things. But since it's all gone now, creating IMO a better introduction (let's leave the point-counterpoint in the article, not the intro!), it's all moot, eh? GertrudeTheTramp 09:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm confused. Ignore me. Or ignore what I say that doesn't make sense. Or rather, ignore what I say that doesn't make sense, the good points I want credit for! :-) I'll go away now. GertrudeTheTramp 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As it was, it wasn't sourced at all, and it wasn't really neutral (to me), either. Mine was origonal research, but I was more trying to solve the NPoV problems that I believe existed at the time.  And since none of it was sourced in the first place... I solved both problems by removing the statements entirelly.  If someone wants to find sources fro the statements, I'll find a link of people arguing the counter.  And in the end, it may just be better to not clutter up the page and instead put links to two well-constructed argument pages, one for and one against, in the links section at the bottom.

A further citation may indeed lie in the body of the law as intent was described by its creators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynsaen (talk • contribs)
 * That's likely to constitute original research. For one thing, a bill may be discriminatory in effect if not in intent.  Further, the creators of a discriminatory law are unlikely to put down "discrimination against group X" in the legislative history of the bill, so we need other commentators to tell us whether or not it is discriminatory. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation
I'd like to know the source of the paragraph begining "DOMA may be largely unnecessary, regardless of whether it is constitutional." I see taht the public policy exception is found in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, but I'm wondering who applied it to the DOMA. GertrudeTheTramp 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been made many times. For one, Dahlia Lithwick made the point in Slate: "The legal truth is that conservatives never needed DOMA in the first place—hysterical posturing notwithstanding, it's by no means a given that other states would be forced to recognize Massachusetts marriages. For one thing, there is an established trapdoor to the full faith and credit clause: The courts have long held that no state should be forced to recognize a marriage sanctioned by another state if that marriage offends a deeply held public policy of the second state. States have been permitted to refuse to recognize marriages from states with different policies toward polygamy, miscegenation, or consanguinity for decades."  Professor Barbara Cox made the same point on the News Hour.  I'm 99.44% sure that it is in the cited references as well.  I hope this helps. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure do and thanks. GertrudeTheTramp 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reception
Should public reception/controversy, such as this guy's video, be listed? BTW; I'm not affiliated with that guy. Nqnpipnr 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal marriage is a CIVIL institution in the United States
Because of the amount of confusion I see on the matter, and in light of the revision I just undid, I think it needs to be said yet again: legal marriage is and always has been a CIVIL institution in the United States. While clergy have a privilege granted to them by civil law to conduct wedding ceremonies, that same priviledge is also granted to judges and, in Maine, Florida, South Carolina and some parishes of Louisiana, to notaries public. It would be a violation of the First Amendment for any state to require religious ritual in order to create a marriage and it is flat out a lie to claim otherwise.

It is likewise be a violation of the First Amendment to require a religious body to conduct a religious ritual in violation of their beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church is free to deny a marriage ceremony when one or both parties have been divorced, laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of previous marital status notwithstanding. Laws giving full, equal marriage to same sex couples would in no way change the right of the RCC or any other religious body to deny religious ritual to same sex couples; to claim otherwise is also flat out a lie. TechBear 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Religious marriage has always been very different than civil (legal) marriage. Divorced Catholics are non recognized as such.  If they remarry in a civil ceremony (or other church), the Catholic church deems the new marriage to be invalid.


 * Similarly, Orthodox Jews do not permit Jews to marry members of other religions. A Jew married to a Christian, non-religious person, etc. would be considered a non-marriage by their view.


 * I think that civil marriage has absolutley nothing to do with religion in the United States. That is whole point of the separation of church and state.


 * This being true, it is good that no single religion be allowed to "make the rules" for everyone else. That is why the US decided to separate religion and state in the first place.


 * Religious marriage is entirely irrelevant with regards to legal marriage. The law does not -- it cannot -- acknowledge religion and, say, prohibit marriage to divorced Catholics. What the Roman Catholic Church, or Orthodox Judaism, or any other religious organization believes about marriage has no bearing whatsoever under the law. TechBear (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. Under George W. Bush's administration, religious ceremonies were considered to be legally binding, and having a marriage-like ceremony without obtaining a marriage license could be construed as fraud. This was the opinion given by the lawyers of the United Methodist Church when my girlfriend and I moved in together but did not wish to give the state the power to "authorize" what should be between the two of us, our families and God. This rule was intended to chill the spread of religious ceremonies among those clergy who had no problem blessing gay unions. We ended up having a broom jumping ceremony, but my now mother-in-law was outraged that her church would not fight that sort of intrusion into the church's affairs, and she still hasn't fully forgiven them for giving in without a fight.70.225.134.79 (talk)

Violation of Equal Protection Clause
Could someone elaborate on how/why DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause? I saw Dnesh Dsouza speak at the Hoover Institution and say that Equal Protection does not apply "because straight people can't get gay marriages either."Jewpiterjones (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee I wonder why this went untouched for two years. An issue at hand in the LGBT rights debate is whether gay people should be able to get married, not that straight people should because their right is a settled one. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not homophobia
Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. There are valid reasons for supporting this bill. This bill will protect traditional families so that the right of American children to be brought up by a father and a mother will be protected. Building stronger families will benefit everyone, straight and gay alike. It is not discriminatory against gays and should not be placed in the homophobia category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any legislation that denies a civil right given to one person and not another can never be legally binding legislation, so if any portion of the government grants and also denies, it is in violation and will be held accountable. This article needs to be kept alive and kept clean.  I don't believe "Homophobia" is a clinic term - ?  I'll look it up.Ol Murrani Kasale (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Homophobia is not only the irrational fear of homosexuals, it is also avertion to, or discrimination against them. It is discriminatory toward gays and lesbians because it mandates the federal government not recognize their relationships and state courts not to respect rulings from states having to do with same-sex relationships.


 * Which part of this bill protects any family? If anything, this bill destroys families, breaking them up at state lines and for federal purposes. There is also no part of the bill that pertains to any child's right to be "brought up by a father and a mother", children are not mentioned in the bill at all. Дҭї 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I submit that the above opinion seems to confuse a purported coincidental relationship with the actual cause of the breaking up of families. The assertion which regards the exclusion of children's rights is right-on.  However, the Act leaves intact the rights of parents to be free from undue government intervention in the bringing up of their children.  The Act does nothing to protect that right.  What is needed for that end is a means by which the liberty of American parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children can be protected as a fundamental right.  --ElderHap (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, damn us Homos for adopting kids there are just TONS of willing straight married parents for....they're truly better off in those wonderful Orphanages. Tell me, what's the Divorce rate in the U.S. again? How many kids are being raised by a Mom and Dad anyway?--Occono (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks and sarcasm are not helpful. This is not a forum of discussion of LGBT rights but the article. And the article needs work. Hekerui (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guys, he doesn't know any better. But I must say his reasoning is ironic. It reflects an "irrational fear of homosexuals." Haha. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Homophobia is irrational. Disdain for deviant behavior that is destructive to society is logical and lacks the irony inherent in irrational behavior. ElderHap (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is why I have disdain for those who consider any relationship between consenting adults any of their business and deviant behavior that is somehow destructive to society --DCX (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If a relationship could exist in isolation with itself, then there would be no harm to society. Since no one is an island unto themself, relationships affect society.  In the aggregate, deviant behavior of a people-group of significant number will affect society.  Society will deviate from the complementary means and ends of cordial relationships and founder under the consequences of schizophrenic impropriety.  DOMA is intended to protect against such resulting destruction by protecting the sanctity of marriage.  Of course, no good deed ever goes unpunished . . . BTW, my protecting society is my business. ElderHap (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, DCX, did you mean to say that you have "disdain for those who consider [. . .] deviant behavior [something] that is somehow destructive to society" ? ElderHap (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This bill is inherently discriminatory against gays. It has been invoked by virtually anyone including the state to invalidate wills, Powers of Attorney and every other legal document meant to designate a beneficiary, custodian or executor of a gay individual in a relationship. Its entire purpose was to ensure that gay relationships were not considered for any purpose in court proceedings. How is this not discriminatory? Second cousins can invoke DOMA to invalidate the will of a gay individual if it includes a same-sex partner. News stories about the results end up on news aggregators such as Fark from time to time, and the lawyers have to keep coming in to explain the ramifications of this bill to us straights who don't have to worry about its impact. 70.225.134.79 (talk)


 * 70.225.134.79, factual assertions can be sourced and put into the article; however, I think you misunderstand the article. Gay relationships in and of themselves do not form the basis for the invalidation of a legal instrument, unless the relationship is subtituted for a relationship that is required for the instrument's validity.  That is, a gay partner cannot substitute their signature for a spouse's required signature.  If you have an authoritative source for the proposition that a will is invalid if it names a beneficiary who is homosexual, then you ought to include that information in the article.  That sort of animus is legally impersuasive and unauthoritative.  All American courts must recognize the gift regardless of the beneficiary's copulatory preference.  ElderHap (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Social Security benefits, etc.?
I've heard it asserted that DOMA precludes the allocation of survivor's benefits to spouses in legally-recognized (within their own states) same-sex marriages. The description of the law seems to suggest that this might be the case, but the article includes little discussion about what this part of DOMA (the part forbidding the federal government from treating same-sex relationships as marriages) means in practical terms. Does anyone know what federal benefits, if any, spouses of same-sex partners lose out on under the federal DOMA? SS451 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The GAO supposedly created a list of about 1,100 federal benefits of marriage, which I really can't find at this moment. I'll keep looking.Ol Murrani Kasale (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Iowa?!
I was about to revert this edit but the link checks out. I'm not sure if it is accurate, though, to say that Iowa has (however briefly) allowed same-sex marriage. Did any same same-sex couples get legally married in Iowa before the judge's ruling was stayed and, if so, what is the current legal status of those marriages? If the answer is No, then the article should be reworded to say that Iowa briefly allowed for same-sex marriage, but no licenses were issued. Thoughts? TechBear (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As the linked-to article indicates, one couple (and only one couple) got their license before the judge issued his stay. The stay was against new marriages; it did not rescind existing marriages. So that couple remains married, although the appeal of the original case (coming in December) could then void the marriage. (What is less clear to me is what the status of out-of-state marriages at this point in Iowa; they may be technically in a New York-like situation, where you can't get married but you can be married, but I don't think anyone's testing that.) --NatGertler (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed the bit about one marriage which is still considered valid. Thanks for the info. TechBear (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else wants to add Iowa to the list of places now doing same-sex marriage, let me note: Iowa is not yet doing SSM! They are slated to start April 24. The article has already been edited to reflect this, and the addition of Iowa to the list prematurely has already been removed multiple times.--Nat Gertler (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Future for the Act
Obama promised to repeal the Act. Is that information important enough to put in the article? If so, under what section? --ElderHap (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Clinton's position is present, so I added Obama's. (They're under Legal History, which is already a poorly-named section that should be fixed or reorganized.)  —EqualRights (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are discussing the Act's history, the debate on its constitutionality, I see no reason not to include information regarding future reform / repeal initiatives of high ranking individual in the US Congress or the President.

I believe H. Clinton advocated repealing parts of DOMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.110.135 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Gill v. Office of Personnel Management plans to forcibly repeal the act. Should that be mentioned as well? --haha169 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Gill" is the GLAD case already mentioned in the text. (And it wouldn't repeal the whole thing, just portions.)--Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GLAD vs. GLAAD
In a likely futile attempt to head off anyone further "correcting" this piece, yes, there is a group called GLAAD with two A's, but no, they aren't the ones filing the DOMA suit. GLAD with one A, a separate group on Gay & Lesbian concerns, is.--Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm... we have 69 states?
I have cleaned up the last paragraph of the lede, omitting Iowa and Vermont from the list of states that currently offer same-sex marriage and tidied up mention of those two states at the end of the paragraph. Looking it over, it would seem we have 69 states:

"Two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) currently allow same-sex marriage, 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 statutory DOMAs. On April 27, 2009, same-sex marriage will become available in Iowa because of a ruling by that state's Supreme Court. On September 1, 2009, an act of the Vermont Legislature becomes effective and Vermont will start offering same-sex marriage as well."

Two states + 5 + 12 + 28 + 20 = 67, plus Iowa and Vermont. We should either break out states with multiple issues (Washington, for example, has statutory DOMA but recognizes domestic partnerships) or add verbage indicating that some states fit more than one category. TechBear (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding verbiage to clarify would seem to make sense. -- Banj e  b oi   00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, what are "statutory DOMAs"? The word "DOMA" is used here as a count noun. Perhaps the intended meaning is that these states all have statutes named "Defense of Marriage Act". But, in that case, shouldn't there be some exposition of the content of these laws? --Lambiam 10:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama DOJ Brief
I think that the Motion to Dismiss that the President Barack Obama Department of Justice filed should be included as either a cited source or External Link. Either way, it should be made available through the article somewhere. It is difficult to find online, people may be looking for the brief from this article, it is relevant to the Legal History subsection and its inclusion is NPOV. I have found the court filing at URLs in PDF form. However, neither is the kind of authoritative or permanent source that I am comfortable linking to. http://lawdork.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/obamadojmtdinsmelt.pdf or http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case. Would someone incorporate this source into the article, and perhaps locate a hosting source that is of archival quality appropriate for a WikiPedia source? Thank you. 71.168.68.5 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama at Gay Pride Reception and DOMA
His comments amount to a clarification on his stance on DOMA. I just removed the sentence saying he no longer supports repeal because he has again explicitly said he will work to repeal law. He also said some stuff about constitutionality (reason for his DOJ brief?) vs. desirability (ugly law). As I am not an expert on this subject I'll let someone else add this info to the page :-) RampagingCarrot (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nadler's plans to require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states
Please do not remove this material. User Schrandit claims, "Some congressman talks about doing this every week, some congressman does it every month, we don't need to document every case," but that claim is completely false. Nadler's statement is unprecedented, and Wikipedia articles on bills routinely document the bills' histories in previous Congresses. --Dr.enh (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia deals in laws that have passed, not laws that some representative talks about thinking about introducing. Rep. Nadler's statement is in no way unprecedented.  Off the top of my head I can think of 4 other congressmen that have made such statements, off the top of my head I can think of two congressmen that have introduced such legislation.  Should we include them all?  Should Wikipedia be a repository of legislation that congressmen have talked about introducing or a repository of encyclopedic fact? - Schrandit (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not only deal in laws that have passed. It has plenty of material on laws that have not passed, on laws that have been proposed. The article on Proposition 8, for example, goes back to before it was on the ballot. Announced plans qualify as fact in that it's fact that the plans have been announced. This isn't saying that this particular item should or should not be included here, mind you, but it cannot be ruled out simply because it is not yet passed law. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think other legislation that has been introduced that would repeal part or all of DOMA should be included in the article. Will you please provide us with the bill or amendment numbers? If the other congressperson's statements are about pending plans, will you please provide a name or reference for each of them? --Dr.enh (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you guys are wasting your time arguing. Take a look at Schrandit's page, there's your answer. Bills and resolutions introduced and/or passed by state legislatures and by Congress are absolutely applicable to this page. This site should contain the most inclusive and up-to-date information on all issues. DOMA is one of them. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Defense of Marriage
Since this article is called the Defense of Marriage Act, shouldn't there be some section explaining exactly how this act defends marriage? If not, shouldn't this article be given an more NPOV title and have "Defense of Marriage Act" redirect to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.40 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is called the Defense of Marriage Act because the law it covers is called the Defense of Marriage Act. I don't like it, and you apparently do not like it, but calling it anything else would be non-factual and point-of-view. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Defense of Marriage Act is indeed appropriate per WP:COMMON; if we were to remove aggrandizing claims from the title of acts, too little would remain. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Act is what it is. See, for example, USA PATRIOT Act or Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Aww.... I completely agree with the original poster. I think that's a great point of view. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of states
"Five states (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont) currently allow same-sex marriage [...] 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." That would be 53 states? -Duribald (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fix it. Just be careful to take into account the several states that have redundant laws such as states with full marriage + DP or Civil Unions, etc. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Struck down
Today, 1st circuit in Boston. No longer law. Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source has been found and the article has been updated. WTF? (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction. Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional per . Not the whole thing. WTF? (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And not 1st circuit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And now the Tauro rulings appear twice in the article, once following the discussion of the two cases and again in a new section. And the summary at the top still says Tenth Amendment, which is what Tauro discussed in the MA case. But it ignores his other decision in Gill. I merged these earlier, bt someone didn't look to see what was done before repeating the duplication. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note as well that the rulings apply only to Massachusetts at this point. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was apparently wrong, so I've reverted everything that I did, except the removal of the word "former" since the full law was not affected. I should know better than to boldly edit articles in which I do not own. WTF? (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds pretty clear that this will be appealed and that the law will almost certainly be up held. Is it really proper to say "were"? - Schrandit (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By what basis will it be almost certainly held up? Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just the coverage I'm seeing. Huffpo says that the ruling would only apply to mass. if the ruling is allowed to stand and I think it is fair to assume that the federal government will challenge the mass. ruling. - Schrandit (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It only applies to MA at present. If affirmed by the next level it will apply to the first circuit's states. I don't think it makes any sense to talk about what the law does or does not do in the past tense. That's just jumping the gun. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Schrandit (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (But no smackdown intended to the edtior who make the original change, there was a lot of misinformation and incomplete informatoin from typically reliable sources in the first few hours. These things happen.)  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What is Section 3?
The "Text" section does not help figure out what part was struck down and what part remains. Thanks! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've labeled the Act's sections in the "Text" section of this entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome... The reference to section 3 at the end of the intro is still leaves the reader hanging a bit.  How would people feel about including a clause in that sentence that said something like "which defines 'marriage' and 'spouse' as used in federal law" or some such. Any suggestions welcome, I'm just interested in making this as accessible to readers as possible.  --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  02:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave this a shot. Also replaced this bad summary of section 3 in the MA paragraph: "The case [Gill] questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government does not have to recognize same-sex marriages." Does not have to recognize is a long way from what section 3 says. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much more comprehensible! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What about "Military Marriages"?
Marriages, like many State v. Federal issues, are muddied in the military, which is considered by the courts as a separate society with its own laws. In the court-martial U.S. v. Juillerat (May 17, 2000 at MacDill AFB), the military held that the defendant had a previous marriage under military law because he had intended to be married and had lived as married for a long period of time. That was necessary to support a charge of bigamy. The facts were that the defendant had attempted to marry in Missouri, but it was not filed as required by State law. The State of Missouri subsequently informed the defendant that the filing error resulted in no valid marriage. Both Missouri and Florida (the only States he had been a resident of in the relevant period) had abrogated common law marriages. Believing he was free to marry, he did. The court-martial held that the first relationship had become a valid marriage under military law. It was clear the defendant knew the facts; since ignorance of the law is not a defense, he pleaded guilty.

Since military law only affects military members (with some limited exceptions not applicable to this case), the civilian "spouse" was not bound by the common law marriage. Does DOMA's use of "between" a man and a woman invalidate a marriage that is binding on only one party? 173.23.115.47 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC) ChicSpandex 20101128.