View source for Defense of Marriage Act

{{Short description|1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022}}
{{Other uses|Defense of marriage amendment (disambiguation){{!}}Defense of marriage amendment}}
{{Redirect|DOMA||Doma (disambiguation){{!}}Doma}}
{{Use American English|date=June 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2012}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| acronym=DOMA
| fullname=An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage
| enacted by= 104th
| effective date={{Start date and age|1996|09|21}}
| cite public law={{USPL|104|199}}
| cite statutes at large= {{usstat|110|2419}} (1996)
| title amended   = [[Title 1 of the United States Code|1 U.S.C. General Provisions]]<br />[[Title 28 of the United States Code|28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure]]
| acts amended=
| sections created = {{USC|1|7}} (Struck down, June 26, 2013)
| leghisturl= http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:@@@S
| introducedin=[[United States House of Representatives|House]]
| introducedbill= {{USbill|104|H.R.|3396}}
| introducedby= [[Bob Barr]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]–[[Georgia (U.S. state)|GA]])
| introduceddate= May 7, 1996
| committees=[[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary]]
| passedbody1 = [[United States House of Representatives|House]]
| passeddate1=July 12, 1996
| passedvote1=[https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml 342–67]
| passedbody2= [[United States Senate|Senate]]
| passeddate2=September 10, 1996
| passedvote2=[https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280 85–14]
| signedpresident=[[Bill Clinton]]
| signeddate=September 21, 1996
| amendments= '''Repealed''' by [[Respect for Marriage Act]]<br>on December 13, 2022
| SCOTUS cases = ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'', {{ussc|570|744|2013|docket=12-307}}, in which Section 3 ({{usc|1|7}}) was '''[[Judicial review in the United States|struck down]] by the Supreme Court''' on June 26, 2013.<br />''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', {{ussc|576|644|2015|docket=14-566}}, in which Section 2 ({{usc|1|7}}) was '''rendered superseded and unenforceable by the Supreme Court'''.
}}
{{Bill Clinton series|expanded=Policies}}

The '''Defense of Marriage Act''' ('''DOMA''') was a [[Law of the United States|United States federal law]] passed by the [[104th United States Congress]] and signed into law by [[President of the United States | President]] [[Bill Clinton]] on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of [[same-sex marriage]] by limiting the definition of [[marriage]] to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

Congressman [[Bob Barr]] and Senator [[Don Nickles]], both members of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]], introduced the bill that became DOMA in May 1996. It passed both houses of Congress by large, [[Veto power in the United States|veto-proof]] majorities. Support was bipartisan, though about a third of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] caucus in both the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] and [[United States Senate|Senate]] opposed it. Clinton criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary". He nonetheless signed it into law in September 1996.

Section 2 of the act allowed states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages conducted by other states. Section 3 codified non-recognition of [[same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex marriages]] for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, [[Social Security (United States)|social security]] survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint [[tax return (United States)|tax returns]]. It also excluded same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers, laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.<ref name="Opinion">{{cite web | url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130702152319/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf |archive-date=2013-07-02 |url-status=live | title =United States v. Windsor | author =[[Supreme Court of the United States]] | publisher =supremecourt.gov | date =June 26, 2015}}</ref>{{rp|23–24}}

After its passage, DOMA was subject to numerous lawsuits and repeal efforts. In ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' (2013), the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the [[Due Process Clause]], thereby requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages conducted by the states. In ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015), the Court held that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by both the Due Process Clause and the [[Equal Protection Clause]]. The ruling required all states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, leaving Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable, at which point the only remaining part of the legislation which remained valid was Section 1 relating to its title. On December 13, 2022, DOMA was repealed by the passage of the [[Respect for Marriage Act]] which was signed into law by President [[Joe Biden]], who had previously voted in favor of DOMA as a United States Senator.

==Background==
{{main|Same-sex marriage in the United States}}

The issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriage attracted mainstream attention infrequently until the 1980s. A sympathetic reporter heard several [[gay]] men raise the issue in 1967 and described it as "high among the deviate's hopes".<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1967/11/12/83645750.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191012225016/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1967/11/12/83645750.pdf |archive-date=2019-10-12 |url-status=live |first=Webster |last=Schott |title=Civil Rights and the Homosexual: A 4-Million Minority Asks for Equal Rights |date=November 12, 1967 |access-date=March 28, 2012}}</ref> In one early incident, gay activist [[Jack Baker (activist)|Jack Baker]] brought suit against the state of Minnesota in 1970 after being denied a marriage license to marry another man; the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] ruled (in ''[[Baker v. Nelson]]'') that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate the Constitution. Baker later changed his legal name to Pat Lynn McConnell and married his male partner in 1971, but the marriage was not legally recognized.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/01/07/119453382.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191012225019/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/01/07/119453382.pdf |archive-date=2019-10-12 |url-status=live |title=Homosexual Wins Fight to Take Bar Examination in Minnesota |date=January 7, 1973 |access-date=February 6, 2012}}</ref><ref name=mw1>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=6213 |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Domestic Disturbance |date=May 4, 2011 |access-date=February 10, 2012}}</ref> A 1972 off-Broadway play, ''Nightride'', depicted "a black–white homosexual marriage".<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1972/01/23/91318536.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191012225017/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1972/01/23/91318536.pdf |archive-date=2019-10-12 |url-status=live |last=Barton |first=Lee (pseudonym) |title=Why Do Homosexual Playwrights Hide their Homosexuality? |date=January 23, 1973 |access-date=February 7, 2012}}</ref><ref group=n>For a review of the play see {{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1971/12/10/90705873.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191012225015/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1971/12/10/90705873.pdf |archive-date=2019-10-12 |url-status=live |first=Clive |last=Barnes |title='Nightride'–No Apologies and No Regrets |date=December 10, 1971 |access-date=February 7, 2012}}</ref> In 1979, [[IntegrityUSA]], an organization of gay Episcopalians, raised the issue when the U.S. Episcopal Church considered a ban on the ordination of homosexuals as priests.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1979/09/17/120959164.pdf |first=Nathaniel |last=Sheppard |title=Panel bids Episcopalians Bar Homosexual priests |date=September 17, 1979 |access-date=February 7, 2012}}</ref><ref group=n>For the theological background beginning in 1967, see {{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1967/12/03/84992192.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191012225015/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1967/12/03/84992192.pdf |archive-date=2019-10-12 |url-status=live |first=Edward B. |last=Fiske |title=Views on Homosexuals |date=December 3, 1967 |access-date=February 7, 2012}}</ref>

''[[The New York Times]]'' said the question was "all but dormant" until the late 1980s when, according to gay activists, "the AIDS epidemic...&nbsp;brought questions of inheritance and death benefits to many people's minds."<ref name=gutis>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/05/weekinreview/ideas-trends-small-steps-toward-acceptance-renew-debate-on-gay-marriage.html |first=Philip S. |last=Gutis |title=Small Steps Toward Acceptance Renew Debate on Gay Marriage |date=November 5, 1989 |access-date=February 6, 2012}}</ref> In May 1989, Denmark established registered partnerships that granted same-sex couples many of the rights associated with marriage.<ref name=gutis /> In the same year, New York's highest court ruled that two homosexual men qualified as a family for the purposes of New York City's rent-control regulations.<ref name=gutis /> Within the movement for gay and lesbian rights, a debate between advocates of sexual liberation and of social integration was taking shape, with [[Andrew Sullivan]] publishing an essay "Here Comes the Groom" in ''[[The New Republic]]'' in August 1989 arguing for same-sex marriage: "A need to rebel has quietly ceded to a desire to belong."<ref name=mw1 />  In September 1989, the [[State Bar of California|State Bar Association of California]] urged recognition of marriages between homosexuals even before gay rights advocates adopted the issue.<ref name=gutis />

[[Gary Bauer]], head of the [[social conservatism in the United States|socially conservative]] [[Family Research Council]], predicted in 1989 that the issue would be "a major battleground in the 1990s".<ref name=gutis /> In 1991, Georgia Attorney General [[Mike Bowers|Michael J. Bowers]] (who had previously been the defendant in a [[Bowers v. Hardwick|failed Supreme Court challenge to a law that criminalized homosexuality]]) withdrew a job offer to a lesbian who planned to marry another woman in a Jewish wedding ceremony.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/06/us/georgia-denies-gay-lawyer-a-job.html |title=Georgia Denies Gay Lawyer a Job |date=October 6, 1991 |access-date=February 7, 2012}}</ref> In 1993, a committee of the [[Evangelical Lutheran Church in America]] released a report asking Lutherans to consider blessing same-sex marriages and stating that lifelong abstinence was harmful to same-sex couples. The Conference of Bishops responded, "There is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship."<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/21/us/lutherans-asked-to-decide-on-blessing-of-gay-unions.html |first=Tamar |last=Lewin |title=Lutherans Asked to Decide On Blessing of Gay Unions |date=October 21, 1993 |access-date=February 7, 2012}}</ref> In a critique of radicalism in the gay liberation movement, [[Bruce Bawer]]'s ''A Place at the Table'' (1993) advocated the legalization of same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/11/books/books-of-the-times-a-strong-gay-dissent-on-public-spectacles.html |first=Christopher |last=Lehmann-Haupt |title=A Strong Gay Dissent On Public Spectacles |date=November 11, 1993 |access-date=February 7, 2012}}</ref>

===''Baehr v. Miike''===
In the 1993 lawsuit ''[[Baehr v. Miike]]'' the [[Supreme Court of Hawaii]] ruled that preventing same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses was sex discrimination. Thus, the court found that the Hawaii State Constitution required the state to demonstrate that its opposite-sex marriage definition satisfied the legal standard known as strict scrutiny.<ref>Ken I. Kersch. "Full Faith and Credit for Same-Sex Marriages?" Political Science Quarterly, Volume 112, Issue 1, Spring 1997, Pages 117–136, https://doi.org/10.2307/2658165</ref> This ruling prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage, who feared that same-sex marriage might become legal in Hawaii and that other states would recognize or be compelled to recognize those marriages under the [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]]. This was because "marriage" and "spouse" were largely undefined terms in federal law, with federal courts relying on state law to define what "marriage" practically entailed. To quote the [[House Judiciary Committee]]'s 1996 report on bill H.R. 3396 (which would become DOMA): "Until the Hawaii situation, there was never any reason to make explicit what has always been implicit — namely, that only heterosexual couples could get married".<ref name=HJC1996Report>{{cite web |author=United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090601050914/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf |archive-date=2009-06-01 |url-status=live |title=Report 104-664: Defense of Marriage Act |date=July 9, 1996 |pages=4–11 |access-date=August 15, 2013}}</ref>

In 1995, as ''Baehr v. Miike'' progressed through Hawaiian courts, dozens of states proposed and enacted laws which explicitly denied recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere in the US and defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.<ref>{{cite news |last=Dunlap |first=David W. |date=1995-03-15 |title=Some States Trying to Stop Gay Marriages Before They Start |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/15/us/some-states-trying-to-stop-gay-marriages-before-they-start.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |url-access=registration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231052346/https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/15/us/some-states-trying-to-stop-gay-marriages-before-they-start.html |archive-date=2013-12-31 |access-date=2025-06-20}}</ref> States would continue enacting these laws even after DOMA passed.

The House Judiciary Committee's 1996 report called for DOMA as a response to ''Baehr'', because "a redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits".<ref name=HJC1996Report /> Additionally, the report claims that four distinct governmental interests would be advanced by DOMA: "(1) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; (2) defending traditional notions of morality; (3) protecting state sovereignty and democratic self-governance; and (4) preserving scarce government resources".<ref name=HJC1996Report />

==Text==
The main provisions of the act were as follows:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104 |title=Defense of Marriage Act|access-date=January 18, 2009 |publisher=United States Government Printing Office|date=September 21, 1996}}</ref>

; Section 1. Short title
: This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
; Section 2. 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.
; 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.

==Enactment and role of President Clinton==
Georgia Representative [[Bob Barr]], then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] on May 7, 1996. Senator [[Don Nickles]], (R-OK), introduced the bill in the [[United States Senate|Senate]].<ref name=nytdunlap>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/09/us/congressional-bills-withhold-sanction-of-same-sex-unions.html |first=David W. |last=Dunlap |title=Congressional Bills Withhold Sanction of Same-Sex Unions |date=May 9, 1996 |access-date=February 10, 2012}}</ref> The [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]] stated that the Act was intended by Congress to "reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality".<ref name="judiciary">{{cite web |publisher=Yahoo! News |url=https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/lawmakers-moral-disapproval-gay-people-1996-could-doom-224933451--politics.html |title=Lawmakers' 'moral disapproval' of gay people in 1996 could doom DOMA law in Supreme Court |first=Liz |last=Goodwin |date = March 27, 2013 |access-date = April 23, 2013}}</ref> The Act's 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."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stewart |first1=Chuck |title=Documents of the LGBT movement |date=2018 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara, California |isbn=9781440855023 |page=149}}</ref>
[[File:Pat Schroeder vs DOMA.jpg|thumb|[[Pat Schroeder]] arguing against DOMA in the House of Representatives]]
Nickles said, "If some state wishes to recognize same-sex marriage, they can do so". He said the bill would ensure that "the 49 other states don't have to and the Federal Government does not have to."<ref name=nytdunlap /> In opposition to the bill, Colorado Rep. [[Patricia Schroeder]] said, "You can't amend the Constitution with a statute. Everybody knows that. This is just stirring the political waters and seeing what hate you can unleash."<ref name=nytdunlap /> Barr countered that the [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]] of the Constitution grants Congress power to determine "the effect" of the obligation of each state to grant "full faith and credit" to other states' acts.<ref name=nytdunlap />

The 1996 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA, referencing only Section 2 of the act: "We reject the distortion of [anti-discrimination] laws to cover sexual preference, and we endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions."<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Presidency Project |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25848 |title=Republican Party Platform of 1996 |date=August 12, 1996 |access-date=July 15, 2010}}</ref> The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Presidency Project |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611 |title=Democratic Party Platform of 1996 |date=August 26, 1996 |access-date=December 4, 2017}}</ref> In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine ''[[The Advocate (LGBT 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."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Frumin |first1=Aliyah |title=Timeline: Bill Clinton's evolution on gay rights |url=https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/timeline-bill-clintons-evolution-gay-rig-msna19626 |access-date=16 October 2021 |work=MSNBC |publisher=NBC News Digital}}</ref> However, he also criticized DOMA as unnecessary and divisive.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/18/doma-anniversary-bill-clinton-book-excerpt-512686|title=Bill Clinton Tried to Avoid the DOMA Trap Republicans Set. Instead, He Trapped Himself.|first=Sasha|last=Issenberg|date=September 18, 2021|website=POLITICO}}</ref>

The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the [[United States Republican Party|Republican]]-controlled Congress.  On July 12, 1996, with only 65 Democrats and then Rep. [[Bernie Sanders]] (I-VT) and Rep. [[Steve Gunderson]] (R-WI), in opposition, 342 members of the U.S. House of Representatives—224 Republicans and 118 Democrats—voted to pass DOMA.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml|title=Final vote results for roll call 316 |access-date=January 18, 2009 |publisher=United States House of Representatives |date=July 12, 1996}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Geidner|first1=Chris|title=Marriage Wars|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/07/marriage-wars/|access-date=October 28, 2015|publisher=Metro Weekly|date=July 13, 2011}}</ref> On September 10, 1996, 84 Senators, a majority of the Democratic Senators, including [[Joe Biden]],<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Liptak |first2=MJ |last2=Lee |first3=Betsy |last3=Klein |first1=Kevin |date=2022-12-13 |title=Biden signs into law same-sex marriage bill, 10 years after his famous Sunday show answer on the issue |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/politics/white-house-same-sex-marriage-signing-ceremony/index.html |access-date=2022-12-13 |website=CNN Politics |language=en}}</ref> and all of the Republicans—voted in favor of DOMA.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280|title=On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3396) |access-date=January 18, 2009 |publisher=United States Senate |date=September 10, 1996}}</ref><ref name="Double Defeat">{{cite news|last1=Geidner|first1=Chris|title=Double Defeat|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/double-defeat/|access-date=October 28, 2015|publisher=Metro Weekly|date=September 14, 2011}}</ref>  Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one openly gay Republican Congressman, Rep. [[Steve Gunderson]] of Wisconsin.<ref name="Double Defeat"/><ref name=mw2>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6427 |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Marriage Wars |date=July 14, 2011 |access-date=February 10, 2012}}</ref>

After Congress had passed DOMA with veto-proof majorities in both houses,<ref name=pppqvagay>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/politics/bill-clintons-decision-and-regret-on-defense-of-marriage-act.html |title=Now in Defense of Gay Marriage, Bill Clinton|last=Baker|first=Peter|work=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 25, 2013|access-date=June 2, 2013}}</ref> Clinton signed the bill into law on September 21, 1996<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/12/florida-same-sex-marriage-ban-defunct-law-constitution-gay-lesbian-queer-supreme-court-judge/6736383002/|title='A horrible law': Florida lawmakers seek repeal of defunct ban on same-sex marriage|first=James|last=Call|website=Tallahassee Democrat}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/how-the-clinton-white-house-handled-doma-in-1996-in-their-ow|title=There's No Evidence In Clinton White House Documents For Clintons' Story On Anti-Gay Law|first=Chris|last=Geidner|date=October 30, 2015|website=BuzzFeed News}}</ref> late at night behind closed doors.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/09/22/president-quietly-signs-law-aimed-at-gay-marriages/4d48e9ee-8f1e-4ea4-ac9d-8a09a9b985e6/|title=PRESIDENT QUIETLY SIGNS LAW AIMED AT GAY MARRIAGES|newspaper=Washington Post|date=September 22, 1996}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-09-22-mn-46623-story.html|title=Clinton Signs Marriage Act, Lauds GOP on Health Bill|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=September 22, 1996}}</ref><ref>{{Cite periodical|url=https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/10/hillary-clinton-and-doma-bill-clinton-signed-it-for-terrible-reasons.html|title=Bill Clinton Signed DOMA for Terrible Reasons. It Was Still the Right Thing to Do.|first=Mark Joseph| author-link = Mark Joseph Stern | last = Stern |magazine=Slate |date=October 26, 2015}}</ref> Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C.;<ref name="mw4">{{cite web|last=Geidner|first=Chris|date=September 29, 2011|title=Becoming Law|url=https://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/becoming-law/|access-date=February 10, 2012|work=Metro Weekly}}</ref> no signing ceremony was held for DOMA and no photographs were taken of Clinton signing it.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7FExDwAAQBAJ&dq=doma+no+signing+ceremony+or+photographs&pg=PA74|title=Accidental Activists: Mark Phariss, Vic Holmes, and Their Fight for Marriage|first=David|last=Collins|publisher=University of North Texas Press|location=Denton, Texas|page=74|date=August 17, 2017|isbn=9781574417036 |accessdate=November 29, 2022}}</ref> The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation".<ref name=mw4 />

In 2013, [[Mike McCurry (press secretary)|Mike McCurry]], the White House press secretary at the time, recalled that Clinton's "posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996."<ref name=pppqvagay /> [[James Hormel]], who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay [[U.S. Ambassador]], described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zccaNSshIsI "David Perry interviews Ambassador James C. Hormel on his new book."] Youtube.com</ref>

Following the signing of DOMA, Clinton's public position on same-sex marriage shifted. In 2008, he spoke out against the passage of California's [[Proposition 8]], which would have banned same-sex marriage, and recorded robocalls urging Californians to vote against it.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Belonsky |first1=Andrew |title=Bill Clinton On Prop 8: "It's Unfair and It's Wrong." |url=https://www.queerty.com/bill-clinton-on-prop-8-its-unfair-and-its-wrong-20081031/ |website=[[Queerty]] |access-date=22 October 2025 |date=31 October 2008}}</ref> In July 2009, he came out in support of same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite news |url=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 |first=Jim |last=Galloway |title=Bill Clinton drops opposition to same-sex marriage |work=[[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]] |date=July 14, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090718073521/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 |archive-date=July 18, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage |first=Michael |last=Tracey |work=[[The Nation]] |date=July 14, 2009 |url=http://www.thenation.com/article/bill-clinton-backs-same-sex-marriage}}</ref>

Years later, Clinton claimed that he signed DOMA reluctantly in view of the veto-proof congressional majorities in support of the bill, and that he did so to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage and to defuse momentum for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.<ref name=pppqvagay /><ref>Clinton, Bill (March 7, 2013). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html "It's time to overturn DOMA."] ''The Washington Post''</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Bill Clinton's Justifications for Signing DOMA|url=http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/bill-clinton-doma-2012-3/|access-date=October 28, 2015|magazine=New York Magazine|date=February 26, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Chris|title=Gay activists unhappy with Clinton remarks on DOMA|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/10/25/gay-activists-unhappy-with-clinton-remarks-on-doma/|access-date=October 28, 2015|work=[[Washington Blade]] |date=October 25, 2015}}</ref> Even so, later the same year, Clinton ran ads on Christian radio stations nationwide promoting his signing of the legislation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/bill-clinton-1996-radio-ad/index.html|title=Listen to Bill Clinton's 1996 radio ad touting his passage of DOMA|first=Andrew |last=Kaczynski|website=CNN|date=October 10, 2016|access-date=2020-01-22}}</ref> The ads were pulled after massive blowback from LGBT groups.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaczynski |first=Andrew |date=2016-10-10 |title=Listen to Bill Clinton's 1996 radio ad touting his passage of DOMA {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/bill-clinton-1996-radio-ad/index.html |access-date=2022-12-05 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> Clinton's explanation for signing DOMA has been disputed by gay rights activists [[Elizabeth Birch]]<ref>{{cite news|last1=Birch|first1=Elizabeth|title=President Clinton is wrong about the history of DOMA|url=http://americablog.com/2013/03/president-clinton-wrong-history-doma.html|access-date=October 28, 2015|publisher=AMERICAblog News|date=March 12, 2013|archive-date=September 8, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150908005155/http://americablog.com/2013/03/president-clinton-wrong-history-doma.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> and [[Evan Wolfson]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Geidner|first1=Chris|title=Becoming Law|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/becoming-law/|access-date=October 28, 2015|work=Metro Weekly|date=September 29, 2011}}</ref>

==Legal impact==
The [[General Accounting Office]] issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".<ref name=gao1997>{{cite web |publisher=General Accounting Office |url=http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120505160324/http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/223674.pdf |archive-date=2012-05-05 |url-status=live |title=OGC-97-16: Defense of Marriage Act |date=January 31, 1997 |access-date=February 12, 2012}}</ref> In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=General Accounting Office |url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040411203121/http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf |archive-date=2004-04-11 |url-status=live |title=GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report |date=January 23, 2004 |access-date=February 12, 2012}}</ref> With respect to Social Security, housing, and food stamps, the GAO found that "recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program[s]." The report also noted several other major program categories that were affected—veterans' benefits, including pensions and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts, and property sales; and benefits due federal employees, both civilian and military—and identified specifics such as the rights of the surviving spouse of a creator of copyrighted work and the financial disclosure requirements of spouses of Congress members and certain officers of the federal government. Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses. Financial aid to "family farms" for example, is restricted to those in which "a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood."<ref name=gao1997 />

Because the federal [[Employee Retirement Income Security Act]] (ERISA) controls most employee benefits provided by private employers, DOMA removed some tax breaks for employers and employees in the private sector when it comes to health care, pension, and disability benefits to same-sex spouses on an equal footing with opposite-sex spouses. ERISA does not affect employees of state and local government or churches, nor does it extend to such benefits as employee leave and vacation.<ref>{{cite journal |publisher=America Bar Association |url=http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/youraba/201112article07.html |title=Providing benefits to same-sex spouses of employees: Legal issues, best practices |journal=ABA Journal |issue=December 2011 |access-date=February 12, 2012}}</ref>

Under DOMA, persons in same-sex marriages were not considered married for immigration purposes. U.S. citizens and permanent residents in same-sex marriages could not petition for their spouses, nor could they be accompanied by their spouses into the U.S. on the basis of a family or employment-based visa. A non-citizen in such a marriage could not use it as the basis for obtaining a waiver or relief from removal from the U.S.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Immigration Policy Center |url=http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigration-and-defense-marriage-act-doma-qa-fact-check |title=Immigration and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): A Q&A Fact Check |date=August 18, 2011 |access-date=February 12, 2012 |archive-date=September 20, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120920084859/http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigration-and-defense-marriage-act-doma-qa-fact-check |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Following the end of the U.S. military's ban on service by open gays and lesbians, "[[Don't ask, don't tell]]," in September 2011, Admiral [[Mike Mullen]], [[Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]], noted that DOMA limited the military's ability to extend the same benefits to military personnel in same-sex marriages as their peers in opposite-sex marriages received, notably health benefits.<ref>{{cite web |work=Daily Courier-Observer |url=http://www.mpcourier.com/article/20110921/DCO01/309219962/0/dco01 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130129042706/http://www.mpcourier.com/article/20110921/DCO01/309219962/0/dco01 |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 29, 2013 |first=Marc |last=Heller |title=Gillibrand Urges Equal Benefits |date=September 21, 2011 |access-date=February 12, 2012 }}</ref> Same-sex spouses of military personnel were denied the same access to military bases, legal counseling, and housing allowances provided to different-sex spouses.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us/17military.html |first=James |last=Dao |title=Same-Sex Marriage Faces Military Limits |date=July 16, 2011 |access-date=February 12, 2012}}</ref>

==Political impact==

The 2000 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA in general terms and indicated concern about [[judicial activism]]: "We support the traditional definition of 'marriage' as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages."<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Presidency Project |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25849 |title=Democratic Party Platform of 2000 |date=July 31, 2000 |access-date=July 15, 2010}}</ref> The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage in this context.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Presidency Project |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29612 |title=Democratic Party Platform of 1996 |date=August 14, 2000 |access-date=July 15, 2010}}</ref>

===Bush administration===
In 2004, President [[George W. Bush]] endorsed a [[Federal Marriage Amendment|proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples]] because he found DOMA to be vulnerable: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."<ref>{{cite news |publisher=CNN |url=http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-24/politics/elec04.prez.bush.marriage_1_single-state-or-city-marriage-rights-marriage-licenses |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120708023532/http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-24/politics/elec04.prez.bush.marriage_1_single-state-or-city-marriage-rights-marriage-licenses |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 8, 2012 |title=Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages |date=February 25, 2004 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> In January 2005, however, he said he would not lobby on its behalf, since too many U.S. senators thought DOMA would not survive a constitutional challenge.<ref>{{cite web |work=Orlando Sentinel |url=https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2005/01/17/bush-wont-lobby-for-amendment/ |first=Leslie |last=Hoffecker |title=Bush Won't Lobby For Amendment |date=January 17, 2005 |access-date=February 8, 2012 |archive-date=January 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115084750/http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2005-01-17/news/0501170143_1_same-sex-marriage-marriage-act-defense-of-marriage |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Obama administration===
President [[Barack Obama]]'s 2008 [[political platform]] endorsed the repeal of DOMA.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf |title=Barack Obama on LGBT Rights |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217232401/http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf |archive-date=December 17, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS |title=Open Letter from Barack Obama Concerning LGBT Equality |access-date=May 7, 2009 |archive-date=May 8, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508195429/http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS |url-status=dead }}</ref> On June 12, 2009, the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of ''[[Smelt v. United States]]'', continuing its longstanding practice of defending all federal laws challenged in court.<ref name="obamaadmin">{{cite news|date=June 12, 2009|title=Obama Admin Moves To Dismiss Defense Of Marriage Act Challenge|work=Huffington Post|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-antigay-def_n_214764.html|url-status=usurped|access-date=June 12, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090614064558/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-antigay-def_n_214764.html|archive-date=June 14, 2009}}</ref> On June 15, 2009, [[Human Rights Campaign]] President [[Joe Solmonese]] wrote an open letter to Obama that asked for actions to balance the DOJ's courtroom position: "We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."<ref>{{cite web |first=Joe |last=Solmonese |date=June 15, 2009 |url=http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Solmonese-letter-to-Obama-re-DOMA-brief-June-15-2009.pdf |title=Open Letter to President Obama |publisher=Human Rights Campaign |access-date=September 7, 2009 |archive-date=October 17, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091017091521/http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Solmonese-letter-to-Obama-re-DOMA-brief-June-15-2009.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> A representative of [[Lambda Legal]], an LGBT [[impact litigation]] and advocacy organization, noted that the Obama administration's legal arguments omitted the Bush administration's assertion that households headed by opposite-sex spouses were better at raising children than those headed by same-sex spouses.<ref name=obamaadmin />

On February 23, 2011, [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]] released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3. He wrote:<ref name=holder/>

<blockquote>After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.</blockquote>

He also announced that although it was no longer defending Section 3 in court, the administration intended to continue to enforce the law "unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."<ref name=holder/>

In a separate letter to [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[John Boehner]], Holder noted that Congress could participate in these lawsuits.<ref name=HolderLetter>{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/letter-attorney-general-congress-litigation-involving-defense-marriage-act  |title=Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act|date=February 23, 2011 |access-date=June 26, 2015}}</ref>

On February 24, the Department of Justice notified the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit Court of Appeals]] that it would "cease to defend" ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management|Gill]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services|Massachusetts]]'' as well.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=GLAD |url=http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/doj-letter-re-ma-doma-cases-02-2011.pdf |title=Letter of Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, to United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |date=February 24, 2011 |access-date=February 28, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724135920/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/doj-letter-re-ma-doma-cases-02-2011.pdf |archive-date=July 24, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On July 1, 2011, the DOJ, with a filing in ''Golinski'', intervened for the first time on behalf of a plaintiff seeking to have DOMA Section 3 ruled unconstitutional, arguing that laws that use sexual orientation as a classification need to pass the court's [[intermediate scrutiny]] standard of review.<ref name=dojgol /> The DOJ made similar arguments in a filing in ''Gill'' on July 7.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=GLAD |url=http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2011-07-07-doj-on-en-banc.pdf |title=DOJ Support of Petition for En Banc Review |date=July 7, 2011 |access-date=July 12, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110803213657/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2011-07-07-doj-on-en-banc.pdf |archive-date=August 3, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

In June 2012, filing an [[amicus curiae|amicus brief]] in ''Golinski'', two former Republican Attorneys General, [[Edwin Meese]] and [[John Ashcroft]], called the DOJ's decision not to defend DOMA Section 3 "an unprecedented and ill-advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice" and "an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm".<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/former-ags-meese-ashcroft-call.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Former AGs Meese, Ashcroft Call Obama Move on DOMA 'Extreme' in Appeals Court Filing |date=June 11, 2012 |access-date=June 12, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617190007/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/former-ags-meese-ashcroft-call.html |archive-date=June 17, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref>

===Congressional intervention===
On March 4, 2011, Boehner announced that the [[Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group]] (BLAG) would convene to consider whether the House of Representatives should defend DOMA Section 3 in place of the Department of Justice,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/04/134268656/boehner-house-will-defend-doma-courts-not-obama-should-decide |title=Boehner: House Will Defend DOMA; Courts, Not Obama, Should Decide |publisher=[[National Public Radio]] |date=March 4, 2011 |access-date=March 4, 2011}}</ref><ref name="congressdefense">{{cite news |publisher=FOX News |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boehner-launches-effort-to-defend-gay-marriage-ban/ |title=Boehner Launches Effort to Defend Gay Marriage Ban |date=March 4, 2011 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> and on March 9 the committee voted 3–2 to do so.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/2chambers/2011/03/house_to_defend_the_defense_of.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112034744/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/2chambers/2011/03/house_to_defend_the_defense_of.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 12, 2012|date=March 9, 2011|title=House to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court |first=Felicia |last=Sonmez |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

On April 18, 2011, House leaders announced the selection of former United States Solicitor General [[Paul Clement]] to represent BLAG.<ref>{{cite web |work=AmLawDaily |url=http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/04/clement-fights-same-sex-marriage.html |first=Ross |last=Todd |title=King & Spalding's Clement to Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage |date=April 18, 2012 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref>    Clement, without opposition from other parties to the case, filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the suit "for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III" of DOMA.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/house-leadership-seeks-to-inte.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=House Leadership Seeks to Intervene in DOMA Case |date=April 18, 2011 |access-date=April 19, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110425041913/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/04/house-leadership-seeks-to-inte.html |archive-date=April 25, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>''Windsor v. United States'', [http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Windsor-BLAGIntervention.pdf Unopposed Motion of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives to Intervene for a Limited Purpose] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110920005537/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Windsor-BLAGIntervention.pdf |date=September 20, 2011 }}. Retrieved April 19, 2011.</ref> On April 25, 2011, [[King & Spalding]], the [[law firm]] through which Clement was handling the case, announced it was dropping the case. On the same day, Clement resigned from King & Spalding in protest and joined [[Bancroft PLLC]], which took on the case.<ref>{{cite news |title=GOP pushes on with marriage act defense after law firm backs out |first1=Russell |last1=Berman |first2=Daniel |last2=Strauss |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/89461-gop-pushes-on-with-marriage-act-defense-after-law-firm-backs-out/ |newspaper=The Hill |location=Washington, D.C. |issn=1521-1568 |oclc=31153202 |date=April 25, 2011 |access-date=November 13, 2011}}</ref> The House's initial contract with Clement capped legal fees at $500,000,<ref>{{cite news |title=Price tag on House defense of DOMA: $500k |url=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/19/6497555-price-tag-on-house-defense-of-doma-500k |work=[[MSNBC]] |date=April 20, 2011 |access-date=April 27, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110423042221/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/19/6497555-price-tag-on-house-defense-of-doma-500k |archive-date=April 23, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> but on September 30 a revised contract raised the cap to $1.5&nbsp;million.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/house-raises-salary-cap-for-doma-lawyer-to-15-million/2011/10/04/gIQAL8biLL_blog.html |date=October 4, 2011 |title=House raises salary cap for DOMA lawyer to $1.5 million |first=Felicia |last=Sonmez |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> A spokesman for Boehner explained that BLAG would not appeal in all cases, citing bankruptcy cases that are "unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court....[E]ffectively defending [DOMA] does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive."<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15bankruptcy.html |first=John |last=Schwartz |title=A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U.S. Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage |date=June 14, 2011 |access-date=February 13, 2012}}</ref>

==Challenges to Section 3 in Federal court==
Numerous plaintiffs have challenged DOMA. Prior to 2009, all federal courts upheld DOMA in its entirety.

Later cases focused on Section 3's definition of marriage. The courts, using different standards, have all found Section 3 unconstitutional. Requests for the Supreme Court to hear appeals were filed in five cases, listed below (with Supreme Court docket numbers):
* ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-13.htm 12-13] as ''BLAG v. Gill'')
* ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-15.htm 12-15] as ''Dept. of HHS v. Massachusetts'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-97.htm 12-97])
* ''[[Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-16.htm 12-16] ''OPM v. Golinski'')
* ''[[Windsor v. United States]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-63.htm 12-63])
* ''[[Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' ([https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-231.htm 12-231])

===''Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management''===
''[[Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' was a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA in federal court based on a judicial employee's attempt to receive spousal health benefits for her partner. In 2008, Karen Golinski, a 19-year employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applied for health benefits for her wife. When the application was denied, she filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan. Chief Judge [[Alex Kozinski]], in his administrative capacity, ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits,<ref>{{cite news |title=Obama on Spot Over a Benefit to Gay Couples |last=Pear |first=Robert |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/us/politics/13benefits.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 12, 2009 |access-date=March 1, 2011}}</ref> but the [[Office of Personnel Management]] (OPM) announced that it would not comply with the ruling.

On March 17, 2011, U.S. District Judge [[Jeffrey White]] dismissed the suit on procedural grounds but invited Golinski to amend her suit to argue the unconstitutionality of DOMA Section 3,<ref>{{cite news |title=Lesbian U.S. employee set back in benefits fight |author= Levine, Dan |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-court-gays-idUSTRE72F9WE20110316 |work=Reuters |date=March 16, 2011 |access-date=March 17, 2011}}</ref> which she did on April 14.<ref>''Golinski v. OPM'', [https://www.scribd.com/doc/53046973/Golinski-v-OPM-Second-Amended-Complaint Second Amended Complaint]. April 14, 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2011</ref> Following the Attorney General's decision to no longer defend DOMA,<ref name=holder>[https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act], February 23, 2011. Retrieved July 5, 2012.</ref> the [[Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group]] (BLAG), an arm of the House of Representatives, took up the defense. Former [[United States Solicitor General]] [[Paul Clement]] filed, on BLAG's behalf, a motion to dismiss raising arguments previously avoided by the Department of Justice: that DOMA's definition of marriage is valid "because only a man and a woman can beget a child together, and because historical experience has shown that a family consisting of a married father and mother is an effective social structure for raising children."<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/house-gop-leadership-defends-t.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=House GOP Leadership Defends 'Traditional' Marriage From Being 'Radically Redefined' |date=June 10, 2011 |access-date=June 13, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612043147/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/house-gop-leadership-defends-t.html |archive-date=June 12, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>''Golinski v. OPM'', [http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Golinski-MtDMemorandum-BLAG.pdf Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120507103259/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/Golinski-MtDMemorandum-BLAG.pdf |date=May 7, 2012 }}. June 3, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2012.</ref> On July 1, 2011, the DOJ filed a brief in support of Golinski's suit, in which it detailed for the first time its case for heightened scrutiny based on "a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities" and its arguments that DOMA Section 3 fails to meet that standard.<ref name=dojgol>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-court-should-not-dismiss-k.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOJ: Court Should Not Dismiss Karen Golinski's Health Benefits Claim, Should Instead Find DOMA Unconstitutional |date=July 1, 2011 |access-date=July 2, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110703040825/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-court-should-not-dismiss-k.html |archive-date=July 3, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>''Golinski v. OPM'', [http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/DOJ-OppToBLAGMtD.pdf Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120507112757/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/DOJ-OppToBLAGMtD.pdf |date=May 7, 2012 }}. July 1, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2011.</ref>

On February 22, 2012, White ruled for Golinski, finding DOMA "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." He wrote that Section 3 of DOMA could not pass the "[[intermediate scrutiny|heightened scrutiny]]" or the "[[rational basis review|rational basis]]" test. He wrote,<ref name=metrogol>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case |date=February 22, 2012 |access-date=February 22, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120223010011/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html |archive-date=February 23, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref>

<blockquote>The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.</blockquote>

While the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, on July 3, 2012, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Ninth Circuit decides it so it can be heard together with two other cases in which DOMA Section 3 was held unconstitutional, ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]''.<ref name=dojcert>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional |date=July 3, 2012 |access-date=July 3, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120704043440/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html |archive-date=July 4, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref> The Supreme Court chose to hear ''Windsor'' instead of these cases, and following the Supreme Court decision in ''Windsor'' the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in ''Golinski'' with the consent of all parties on July 23.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/golinski_us_20130723_order |title=Order: ''Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management'' |publisher=Lambda Legal |access-date=July 23, 2013}}</ref>

===''Gill'' and ''Massachusetts''===
On March 3, 2009, [[Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders|GLAD]] filed a federal court challenge, ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'', based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government's consistent deference to each state's definition of marriage prior to the enactment of DOMA. The case questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.<ref>{{cite news |first1=Abby |last1=Goodnough |first2=Katie |last2=Zezima |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html |title=Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=March 2, 2009 |access-date=November 6, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit |title="DOMA" Means Federal Discrimination Against Married Same-Sex Couples |publisher=GLAD |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306233900/http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit |archive-date=March 6, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On May 6, 2010, Judge [[Joseph Louis Tauro|Joseph L. Tauro]] heard arguments in the [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|U.S. District Court in Boston]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html|title=Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination|date=May 6, 2010|access-date=June 5, 2010|work=[[The New York Times]]|first=Katharine Q.|last=Seelye}}</ref>

On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General [[Martha Coakley]] filed a suit, ''[[Massachusetts 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."<ref name="BG07-08">{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html |title=Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act| last=Finucane |first=Martin |date=July 8, 2009 |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |access-date=November 6, 2009}}</ref> Tauro, the judge also handling ''Gill'', heard arguments on May 26, 2010.<ref>{{cite news|title=Massachusetts challenges Marriage Act|url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/05/26/Massachusetts-challenges-Marriage-Act/UPI-48791274884096/|access-date=June 28, 2013|newspaper=UPI|date=May 26, 2010}}</ref>

On July 8, 2010, Tauro issued his rulings in both ''Gill'' and ''Massachusetts'', granting [[summary judgment]] for the plaintiffs in both cases.<ref>''[http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv10309/120672/70/0.pdf Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]'', 699 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Mass. 2010). Retrieved February 10, 2012.</ref><ref>''[http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2009cv11156/123233/58/0.pdf Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]'', 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010). Retrieved February 10, 2012.</ref> He found in ''Gill'' that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]. In ''Massachusetts'' he held that the same section of DOMA violates the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]] and falls outside Congress' authority under the [[Taxing and Spending Clause|Spending Clause]] of the Constitution.<ref name="metroweekly">{{cite news |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html |title=Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection |last=Geidner |first=Chris |date=July 8, 2010 |access-date=July 8, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100712061020/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html |archive-date=July 12, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="baywindows">[https://web.archive.org/web/20100711133445/http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807 DOMA decisions released] Bay Windows. July 8, 2010.</ref> Those decisions were stayed after the DOJ filed an appeal on October 12, 2010.<ref name="boston.com">{{cite news |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/10/12/feds_appeal_mass_rulings_against_us_marriage_law/ |title=Feds Appeal Mass Rulings against U.S. Marriage Law |date=October 12, 2010 |access-date=October 13, 2010 |first=Denise |last=Lavoie}}</ref>

On November 3, 2011, 133 House Democrats filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in ''Gill'' and ''Massachusetts'', asserting their belief that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional.<ref name="PoliticoHouse133">{{cite news |title=DOMA opposed by 133 House Democrats |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2011/11/133-house-dems-oppose-doma-067556 |author=Mackenzie Weinger |newspaper=Politico |date=November 3, 2011|access-date=November 3, 2011}}</ref> Included among the members of Congress signing the brief were 14 members who had voted for the bill in 1996.<ref name="PoliticoHouse133"/> Seventy major employers also filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs.<ref name="Forbes">{{cite news |work=Forbes |title=Seventy Major Employers Line Up Against DOMA |date=November 4, 2011 |first=Peter J. |last=Reilly |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2011/11/04/seventy-major-employers-line-up-against-doma/ }}</ref> A three-judge panel heard arguments in the case on April 4, 2012, during which the DOJ for the first time took the position that it could not defend Section 3 of DOMA under any level of scrutiny.<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/federal-appeals-judges-consider-whether-doma-is.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Federal Appeals Judges Consider Whether DOMA Is Constitutional in Historic Hearing in Boston |date=April 4, 2012 |access-date=April 4, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120405041721/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/federal-appeals-judges-consider-whether-doma-is.html |archive-date=April 5, 2012 }}</ref> On May 31, 2012, the panel unanimously affirmed Tauro's ruling, finding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.<ref name=bb1st>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-31/defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional-appeals-court-says-1-.html |title=Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Says |publisher=Bloomberg |last1=Jeffrey |first1=Don |date=May 31, 2012 |last2=Dolmetsch |first2=Chris |access-date=July 5, 2012}}</ref><ref name=dec1st>''[http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-2204P.01A Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120601081149/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-2204P.01A |date=June 1, 2012 }}'', No. 10-2204, slip op. (May 31, 2012).</ref> On June 29, BLAG filed a petition for [[Certiorari#United States|certiorari]] with the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |work=Washington Blade |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/06/29/breaking-boehner-appeals-doma-cases-to-supreme-court/ |first=Chris |last=Johnson |title=Boehner appeals DOMA cases to Supreme Court |date=June 20, 2012 |access-date=June 29, 2012}}</ref> The DOJ did so on July 3, while asking the Supreme Court to review ''Golinski'' as well.<ref name=dojcert /> The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a response to both petitions adding the Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment issues as questions presented.<ref group=n>The Commonwealth also filed its own petition in ''Massachusetts'' in case the court found the response was not the proper way to raise those issues.</ref> The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in ''Windsor''.

===''United States v. Windsor''===
{{Main|United States v. Windsor}}
On November 9, 2010, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] filed ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' in New York on behalf of a surviving same-sex spouse whose inheritance from her deceased spouse had been subject to federal taxation as if they were unmarried.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us/09marriage.html |first=John |last=Schwartz |title=Gay Couples to Sue Over U.S. Marriage Law |date=November 8, 2010 |access-date=February 23, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Widow's $363,000 Tax Bill Led to Obama Shift on Marriage Act |author=Andrew M. Harris |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/a-363-000-tax-bill-to-widow-led-to-obama-shift-in-defense-of-marriage-act.html |newspaper=Bloomberg Businessweek |date=February 28, 2011 |access-date=July 31, 2011}}</ref> New York is part of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]], where no precedent exists for the standard of review to be followed in sexual-orientation discrimination cases.

New York Attorney General [[Eric Schneiderman]] filed a brief supporting Windsor's claim on July 26, 2011.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/new-york-attorney-general-take.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=New York Attorney General Takes Edith Windsor's Side in DOMA Challenge |date=July 26, 2011 |access-date=July 27, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110806181726/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/new-york-attorney-general-take.html |archive-date=August 6, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>[[File:Mommy, Mama and Baby Georgie (9181858236).jpg|thumb|Same-sex couple celebrating legal victory at San Francisco Pride 2013]]

On June 6, 2012, Judge [[Barbara S. Jones|Barbara Jones]] ruled that based on rational basis review Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the requested tax refund be paid to Windsor. The plaintiff commented, "It's thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers."<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/another-federal-judge-finds-doma-marriage-definiti.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Another Federal Judge Finds DOMA Marriage Definition Unconstitutional, Now in Widow's Case |date=June 6, 2012 |access-date=June 6, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120607051055/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/another-federal-judge-finds-doma-marriage-definiti.html |archive-date=June 7, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Windsor's attorneys filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 16, asking for the case to be considered without waiting for the Second Circuit's review.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/widow-petitions-doma-case-to-the-supreme-court.html |first=Justin |last=Snow |title=Widow Petitions DOMA Case to the Supreme Court |date=July 16, 2012 |access-date=July 16, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722133026/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/widow-petitions-doma-case-to-the-supreme-court.html |archive-date=July 22, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On October 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|last=Baynes|first=Terry|title=Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-appeal-idUSBRE89H12L20121018|access-date=October 18, 2012|newspaper=[[Reuters]]|date=October 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name=2ndCir>{{cite web|title=Windsor v. USA |url=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf |publisher=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] |access-date=October 18, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130108041134/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf |archive-date=January 8, 2013 }}</ref> According to an ACLU press release, this ruling was "the first federal appeals court decision to decide that government discrimination against gay people [[Intermediate scrutiny|gets a more exacting level of judicial review]]".<ref>{{cite news|publisher=ACLU Press Release|title=Federal Appeals Court Declares "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional|url=https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/federal-appeals-court-declares-defense-marriage-act-unconstitutional|access-date = July 25, 2013}}</ref> In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated:<ref>{{cite news|last=Weiss|first=Debra Cassens|title=2nd Circuit Rules for Surviving Gay Spouse, Says DOMA Violates Equal Protection Clause|url=http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/2nd_circuit_rules_for_surviving_gay_spouse_seeking_estate_tax_deduction_in_/|access-date=18 October 2012|newspaper=ABA Journal|date=18 October 2012}}</ref>

<blockquote>Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition, but law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status—however fundamental—and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples.</blockquote>

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.<ref>{{cite news| first = Jonathan | last = Stempel | title = Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases in late March | work = Reuters| date = January 7, 2013 | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE9060N820130107| access-date=January 7, 2013}}</ref> In a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."<ref name="Opinion" />{{rp|25}}

On July 18, 2013, the [[Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group]] (BLAG), which had mounted a defense of Section 3 when the administration declined to, acknowledged that in ''Windsor'' "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and said "it no longer will defend that statute."<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/house-republicans-cave-on-marriage-fight |access-date=July 18, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed |date=July 18, 2013}}</ref>

===''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management''===
''[[Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' is a case filed by GLAD in Connecticut on behalf of same-sex couples in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, in which GLAD repeats the arguments it made in ''Gill''.

On July 31, 2012, Judge [[Vanessa Lynne Bryant]] ruled that "having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."<ref>{{cite web|last=Bolcer|first=Julie|title=Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional in Pedersen Case|url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/07/31/breaking-judge-rules-doma-unconstitutional-pedersen-case|date=31 July 2012|access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref> She held that "laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny by courts" but determined Section 3 of DOMA "fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny."<ref name=buzz>{{cite web |last=Geidner |first=Chris |title=Federal Trial Court In Connecticut Strikes Down DOMA's Marriage Definition|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-trial-court-in-connecticut-strikes-down-do|publisher=BuzzFeed Politics |date=31 July 2012 |access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref><ref name=tpm1>{{cite web|last=Geidner |first=Ryan J. |title=Bush Appointee Rules DOMA Unconstitutional |url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/bush_appointee_rules_doma_unconstitutional.php |publisher=Talking Points Memo |date=31 July 2012 |access-date=31 July 2012}}</ref> The case was appealed to the Second Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, Pedersen asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Second Circuit decides it so it can be heard together with ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]''.<ref>''Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management'', [http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/pedersen-plaintiffs-cert-petition-08-21-12.pdf Petition for Certiorari Before Judgment] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924022459/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/pedersen-plaintiffs-cert-petition-08-21-12.pdf |date=September 24, 2015 }}. Retrieved August 21, 2012.</ref> The Supreme Court denied these petitions on June 27, 2013, following its decision in ''Windsor''.

===Other cases===
Other cases that challenged DOMA include:<ref>{{cite web |date=February 28, 2011 |title=Pending cases where the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/49755370/List-of-Pending-DOMA-Cases}}</ref>
* ''Dragovich v. Department of the Treasury'', No. 10-1564 (N.D. Cal.), a class action in which California same-sex couples seek equal access to California's long-term care insurance program for public employees and their families. U.S. District Court Judge [[Claudia Wilken]] on May 24, 2012, found Section 3 of DOMA and certain IRS regulations violated the plaintiffs' equal protection rights.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/on-thursday-evening-a-federal.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Federal Judge Rules DOMA, Tax Code Force Unconstitutional Treatment For Same-Sex Couples |date=May 25, 2012 |access-date=May 25, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525155710/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/on-thursday-evening-a-federal.html |archive-date=May 25, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
* ''Hara v. Office of Personnel Management'', No. 09-3134 (Fed. Cir.) Hara is one of the plaintiffs in ''Gill''.
* ''Torres-Barragan v. Holder'', No. 10-55768 (9th Cir.) An immigration-related DOMA challenge in which the district court rejected the constitutional challenges.<ref>{{cite web|title=Torres-Barragan v. Holder|url=http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12588|work=Civilo Rights Litigation Clearinghouse|publisher=University of Michigan Law School|access-date=January 14, 2013}}</ref>
* ''Cozen O'Connor v. Tobits'', No. 11-00045-CDJ, Pennsylvania, in which two parties dispute who inherits the proceeds of a law firm's profit-sharing plan under ERISA and DOMA. The DOJ filed a brief arguing the unconstitutionality of DOMA.<ref>{{cite news |work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12009/1201860-499.stm |first=Gina |last=Passarella |title=U.S. Justice Department argues that Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional |date=January 9, 2012 |access-date=February 12, 2012}}</ref> Following the decision in ''Windsor'', Judge [[C. Darnell Jones II]] ruled that the widow qualified as the deceased's spouse since Illinois, their state of domicile, recognized them as spouses in a civil union as defined by Illinois.<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=Federal Judge Says DOMA Ruling Changes Private Companies' Retirement Plans|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-says-doma-ruling-changes-private-companies-ret|access-date=August 2, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed|date=July 29, 2013}}</ref> The deceased's parents dropped their appeal on August 30.<ref>{{cite news|last=Packel|first=Dan|title=Late Cozen Atty's Family Drops Same-Sex Benefits Fight|url=http://www.law360.com/m/articles/469086/late-cozen-atty-s-family-drops-same-sex-benefits-fight|access-date=August 31, 2013|newspaper=Law 360|date=August 30, 2013}}</ref>
* On April 5, 2012, Chief Judge [[James Ware (judge)|James Ware]] of the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]] ordered the federal court clerk to reimburse Christopher Nathan, a court employee, for the costs of health insurance coverage for his same-sex spouse comparable to that denied him by Section 3 of DOMA.<ref>{{cite news |work=San Francisco Chronicle |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/05/BAOM1NV12O.DTL |first=Bob |last=Egelko |title=Same-sex benefits denial is ruled discriminatory |date=April 5, 2012 |access-date=April 5, 2012}}</ref> On November 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference affirmed Ware's decision and ordered the court to determine the amount due Nathan and pay him within 10 days.<ref>{{cite news|last=Egelko|first=Bob|title=Same-sex case ruling favors gay employee|url=http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Same-sex-case-ruling-favors-gay-employee-4063964.php|access-date=November 26, 2012|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|date=November 25, 2012}}</ref>

==== Military and veterans cases ====
On October 13, 2011, Carmen Cardona, a U.S. Navy veteran, filed a lawsuit in the [[United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims]] seeking disability benefits for her wife that the Veterans Administration and the Board of Veterans Appeals had denied.<ref>{{cite news|last=Dao|first=James|title=Denied Veterans Benefits Over Same-Sex Marriage, Ex-Sailor Challenges Law|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/denied-veterans-benefits-over-same-sex-marriage-carmen-cardona-sues.html|access-date=3 October 2012|newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=12 October 2011}}</ref> Cardona was represented by the Yale Law School Legal Services Clinic.<ref>{{cite web|title=Cardona v. Shinseki|url=http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/vlsc_cardona.htm|work=Veterans Legal Services Clinic|publisher=Yale Law School|access-date=3 October 2012}}</ref> At the request of BLAG, which defended the government's action, and over Cardona's objections, the court postponed oral argument in ''[[Cardona v. Shinseki]]'' pending the Supreme Court's disposition of writs of certiorari in other DOMA cases.<ref>Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: [https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc/01202223555 Number:11-3083], accessed November 26, 2012</ref>

On October 27, 2011, the [[Servicemembers Legal Defense Network]] (SLDN) brought suit in federal court on behalf of several military servicemembers and veterans in same-sex marriages. In a November 21 filing in the case of ''McLaughlin v. Panetta'', they wrote, "Any claim that DOMA, as applied to military spousal benefits, survives rational basis review is strained because paying unequal benefits to service members runs directly counter to the military values of uniformity, fairness and unit cohesion." The benefits at issue include medical and dental benefits, basic housing and transportation allowances, family separation benefits, visitation rights in military hospitals, and survivor benefit plans.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6798 |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=SLDN Takes Aim at DOMA |date=November 23, 2011 |access-date=February 11, 2012}}</ref> The case was assigned to Judge [[Richard Gaylore Stearns|Richard G. Stearns]]. One of the plaintiffs in the case, lesbian Charlie Morgan, who was undergoing chemotherapy, met with an assistant to Boehner on February 9, 2012, to ask him to consider not defending DOMA.<ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/charlie-morgan-lesbian-guardsman-cancer-john-boehner-doma_n_1263814.html |first=Andrea |last=Stone |title=Charlie Morgan, Lesbian Guardsman With Cancer, Meets John Boehner Staffer To Push DOMA Repeal |date=February 9, 2012 |access-date=February 11, 2012}}</ref> The case is on hold at the request of both sides in anticipation of the outcome of two other First Circuit cases on appeal, ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' and ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]''.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/sldn-doj-agree-to-60-day-delay.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=SLDN, DOJ Agree to 60-Day Delay in Case Challenging Gay Servicemembers' Spousal Benefits |date=February 16, 2012 |access-date=February 17, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216212841/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/sldn-doj-agree-to-60-day-delay.html |archive-date=February 16, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On February 17, the DOJ announced it could not defend the constitutionality of the statutes challenged in the case.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/doj-wont-defend-laws-preventin.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=DOJ Won't Defend Laws Preventing Equal Treatment for Servicemembers With Same-Sex Spouses |date=February 17, 2012 |access-date=February 17, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120219223955/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/doj-wont-defend-laws-preventin.html |archive-date=February 19, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> In May 2012, the parties filed briefs arguing whether BLAG has a right to intervene.<ref>{{cite web |work=Wisconsin Gazette |url=http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/boehner-moves-to-defend-anti-gay-doma-in-military-case.html |title=Boehner moves to defend anti-gay DOMA in military case |date=May 4, 2012 |access-date=June 13, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130209080712/http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/boehner-moves-to-defend-anti-gay-doma-in-military-case.html |archive-date=February 9, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On June 27, Stearns asked the parties to explain by July 18 why given the decision in ''Windsor'' he should not find for the plaintiffs.<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=House Republicans Face Decision On Fighting Gay Veterans' Spousal Benefits|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/house-republicans-face-decision-on-fighting-gay-veterans-spo |access-date=July 17, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed|date=July 17, 2013}}</ref> On July 18, BLAG's response acknowledged that "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case. It took no position on the two statutes at issue in the case, which define a "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex", except to say that "the question of whether [that definition] is constitutional remains open".<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/house-republicans-cave-on-marriage-fight|access-date=July 18, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed |date=July 18, 2013}}</ref>

Tracey Cooper-Harris, an Army veteran from California, sued the [[United States Department of Veterans Affairs|Veterans Administration]] and the DOJ in federal court on February 1, 2012, asking for her wife to receive the benefits normally granted to spouses of disabled veterans.<ref>{{cite web |work=Pasadena Sun |url=http://articles.pasadenasun.com/2012-02-01/news/31014248_1_marriage-act-sexual-orientation-spouses |title=Pasadena same-sex couple sues VA over benefits |date=February 1, 2012 |access-date=February 11, 2012 |archive-date=May 11, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120511030224/http://articles.pasadenasun.com/2012-02-01/news/31014248_1_marriage-act-sexual-orientation-spouses |url-status=dead }}</ref> BLAG sought a delay in ''Cooper-Harris v. United States'' pending the resolution of ''Golinski'', which the attorneys for Cooper-Harris, the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]], opposed. The court denied BLAG's motion on August 4.<ref>{{cite web|last=Snow|first=Justin|title=Court Denies Motion To Stay DOMA Case Proceedings|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/08/court-denies-motion-to-stay-doma-case-proceedings.html|publisher=Metro Weekly|date=August 3, 2012|access-date=August 3, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120806020807/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/08/court-denies-motion-to-stay-doma-case-proceedings.html|archive-date=August 6, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In February 2013, Judge [[Consuelo Bland Marshall|Consuelo Marshall]] rejected the DOJ's argument that the case could only be heard by the [[Board of Veterans' Appeals]] and allowed the case to proceed.<ref>{{cite news|title=Tracey Cooper-Harris, Gay California Veteran, Moves Forward With DOMA Lawsuit |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/tracey-cooper-harris-gay-california-veteran-doma-suit_n_2765302.html |access-date=July 18, 2013|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=February 25, 2013}}</ref> BLAG asked to withdraw from the lawsuit on July 22.<ref>[https://www.scribd.com/doc/155453235/2-12-cv-00887-136 Application to Withdraw], accessed July 23, 2013</ref>

==== Bankruptcy court ====
In May 2011, DOMA-based challenges by the Department of Justice to joint petitions for bankruptcy by married same-sex couples were denied in two cases, one in the Southern District of New York on May 4 and one in the Eastern District of California on May 31. Both rulings stressed practical considerations and avoided ruling on DOMA.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=American Bankruptcy Institute |url=http://blog.startfreshtoday.com/2011/06/articles/practicing-bankruptcy-law/bankruptcy-judge-bypasses-doma-to-allow-joint-bankruptcy-filing-by-samesex-spouses/ |title=Bankruptcy Judge Bypasses DOMA to Allow Joint Bankruptcy Filing by Same-Sex Spouses |date=June 3, 2011 |access-date=June 9, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610152647/http://blog.startfreshtoday.com/2011/06/articles/practicing-bankruptcy-law/bankruptcy-judge-bypasses-doma-to-allow-joint-bankruptcy-filing-by-samesex-spouses/ |archive-date=June 10, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>''[http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinions/cgm/204950_31_opinion.pdf In re Somers and Caggiano] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916131020/http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinions/cgm/204950_31_opinion.pdf |date=September 16, 2012 }}'', 10-38296, slip op. (Bky.S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011). Retrieved June 9, 2011.</ref>

On June 13, 2011, 20 of the 25 judges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California signed an opinion in the case ''in re Balas and Morales'' that found that a same-sex married couple filing for bankruptcy "have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled." The decision found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and dismissed BLAG's objections to the joint filing:<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/bankruptcy-court-doma-unconsti.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Bankruptcy Court: DOMA Unconstitutionally Limits Same-Sex Married Couples From Joint Bankruptcy Filing |date=June 13, 2011 |access-date=June 13, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110617033106/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/bankruptcy-court-doma-unconsti.html |archive-date=June 17, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://sdgln.com/causes/2011/06/13/bankruptcy-court-rules-section-3-doma-unconstitutional |title=Bankruptcy Court rules section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional |publisher=SDGLN |date=June 13, 2011 |access-date=June 13, 2011}}</ref>

<blockquote>Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors' right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors.</blockquote>

A spokesman for House Speaker Boehner said BLAG would not appeal the ruling,<ref>{{cite news |title=A California Bankruptcy Court Rejects U.S. Law Barring Same-Sex Marriage |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15bankruptcy.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=June 14, 2011 |access-date=June 16, 2011 |first=John |last=Schwartz}}</ref> On July 7, 2011, the DOJ announced that after consultation with BLAG it would no longer raise objections to "bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same-sex couples who are married under state law".<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/us-trustee-withdraws-appeal-of.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=U.S. Trustee Withdraws Appeal of Gay Couple's Bankruptcy Court DOMA Victory |date=July 7, 2011 |access-date=July 7, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110710021212/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/us-trustee-withdraws-appeal-of.html |archive-date=July 10, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref>

==== Immigration cases ====
Bi-national same-sex couples were kept from legally living in the United States by DOMA's Section 3, which prevented one spouse from sponsoring the other for a [[Permanent residence (United States)|green card]].<ref>{{cite news |work=New York Daily News |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/vermont-senator-urges-same-sex-marriages-immigrant-spouses-article-1.375661 |first=Allan |last=Wernick |title=Vermont Senator urges same-sex marriages OK for 'immigrant spouses' |date=June 10, 2009 |access-date=December 19, 2011}}</ref> Following some uncertainty after the Obama Administration determined Section 3 to be unconstitutional, the [[United States Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) reaffirmed its policy of denying such applications.<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/immigration-official-the-hold.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Immigration Official: 'The Hold Is Over' |date=March 30, 2011 |access-date=March 30, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110401043538/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/03/immigration-official-the-hold.html |archive-date=April 1, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref> With respect to obtaining a visitor's visa, Bureau rules treated bi-national same-sex spouses the same as bi-national opposite-sex unmarried partners under the classification "cohabiting partners".<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Travel.state.gov |url=https://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1414.html |title=B2 Classification for Cohabiting Partners |access-date=March 28, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110326164945/http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1414.html |archive-date=March 26, 2011 |df=mdy }}</ref>

[[Tim Coco]] and Genesio J. Oliveira, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts in 2005, successfully challenged this policy and developed a model since followed by other immigration activists.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/us/09marriage.html |first=Julia |last=Preston |title=Justice Dept. to Continue Policy Against Same-Sex Marriage |date=May 8, 2011 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> The U.S. refused to recognize their marriage, and in 2007 Oliveira, a Brazilian national, accepted "voluntary departure" and returned to Brazil. They conducted a national press campaign<ref>{{cite web |work=AdWeek |url=http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/mass-ad-exec-fights-two-battles-ads-15930 |title=Mass. ad exec fights two battles with ads |date=April 29, 2008 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> A ''[[Boston Globe]]'' editorial commented, "Great strides toward equality for gays have been made in this country, but the woeful fate of Tim Coco and Genesio Oliveira shows that thousands of same-sex couples, even in Massachusetts, still aren't really full citizens."<ref>{{cite news|work=[[Boston Globe]] |url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/27/reunite_this_family/ |title=Reunite this family |date=August 27, 2007 |access-date=August 7, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100620145355/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/08/27/reunite_this_family/ |archive-date=June 20, 2010 }}</ref> The editorial gained the attention of Senator [[John F. Kerry]], who first lobbied [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Eric Holder]] without success.<ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/20/kerry-seeks-asylum-for-ga_n_177504.html |first=Meilssa |last=Trujillo |title=Kerry Seeks Asylum For Gay Brazilian Wed In Mass. |date=March 20, 2009 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> He then gained the support of [[United States Secretary of Homeland Security|Homeland Security Secretary]] [[Janet Napolitano]], who granted Oliveira [[Parole (United States immigration)|humanitarian parole]], enabling the couple to reunite in the U.S. in June 2010.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/04/gay_couple_get_a_boost_in_winning_bid_to_reunite/ |first=Maria |last=Sacchetti |title=Gay couple get a boost in winning bid to reunite |date=June 4, 2010 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref> Humanitarian parole is granted on a case-by-case basis at the Secretary's discretion.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/nyregion/14orphan.html |first=Nina |last=Bernstein |title=A Contest of Suffering, With the U.S. as a Prize |date=October 14, 2005 |access-date=August 7, 2011}}</ref>

On September 28, 2011, in ''Lui v. Holder'', U.S. District Court Judge [[Stephen Victor Wilson|Stephen V. Wilson]] rejected a challenge to DOMA, citing ''[[Adams v. Howerton]]'' (1982).<ref>673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982).</ref> The plaintiffs in that case had unsuccessfully challenged the denial of immediate relative status to the same-sex spouse of an American citizen.<ref>''[http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/LuiVHolder-Order.pdf Lui v. Holder] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111010102841/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/LuiVHolder-Order.pdf |date=October 10, 2011 }}'', No: 2:11-CV-01267-SVW (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. September 28, 2011). Retrieved October 4, 2011.</ref><ref>{{cite web |work=The Advocate |url=http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/09/29/Judge_Throws_Out_Binational_Couple_s_DOMA_Suit/ |first=Andrew |last=Harmon |title=Judge Throws Out Binational Couple's DOMA Lawsuit |date=September 29, 2011 |access-date=October 4, 2011}}</ref> Early in 2012, two bi-national same-sex couples were granted "deferred action" status, suspending deportation proceedings against the non-U.S. citizen for a year.<ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/bradford-wells-anthony-john-makk-deportation-reprieve_n_1186291.html |title=Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk, San Francisco Gay Married Couple, Win Deportation Reprieve For Two Years |date=January 5, 2012 |access-date=February 9, 2012 |first=Curtis |last=Wong}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |work=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/same-sex-immigration-relief_n_1266829.html |first=Elise |last=Foley |title=Same-Sex Couple Wins Immigration Relief, Despite Defense Of Marriage Act |date=February 9, 2012 |access-date=February 9, 2012}}</ref> A similar Texas couple had a deportation case dismissed in March 2012, leaving the non-citizen spouse unable to work legally in the United States but no longer subject to the threat of deportation.<ref>{{cite web |work=Houston Chronicle |url=http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Gay-married-immigrant-spared-from-deportation-3395916.php |first=Susan |last=Carroll |title=Gay, married immigrant spared from deportation |date=March 9, 2012 |access-date=March 10, 2012}}</ref>

On January 5, 2012, the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois]] in Chicago decided the suit of a same-sex binational couple. Demos Revelis and Marcel Maas, married in Iowa in 2010, sought to prevent the USCIS from applying Section 3 of DOMA to Revelis's application for a permanent residence visa for Maas and, in the court's words, "that their petition be reviewed and decided on the same basis as other married couples."<ref>''[http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv01991/253811/34/0.pdf?1325850164 Revelis v. Napolitano] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916113239/http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv01991/253811/34/0.pdf?1325850164 |date=September 16, 2012 }}'', 11 C 1991, slip op. (N.D. Ill. January 5, 2012). Retrieved March 2, 2012.</ref> Judge [[Harry Daniel Leinenweber|Harry D. Leinenweber]], a Reagan appointee, denied the government's motion to dismiss. BLAG has argued for the suit to be dismissed.<ref name=blesch /> In July the court stayed proceedings until mid-October because the USCIS was considering denying the plaintiffs' request on grounds unrelated to DOMA.<ref>[http://www.abisoft.org/opinions/2012/1_11-cv-01991_20120712.pdf ''Revelis v. Napolitano'', granting motion to stay] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916131020/http://www.abisoft.org/opinions/2012/1_11-cv-01991_20120712.pdf |date=September 16, 2012 }}, July 12, 2012. Retrieved August 2, 2012</ref>

On April 2, 2012, five bi-national same-sex couples represented by [[Immigration Equality (organization)|Immigration Equality]] and Paul, Weiss filed a lawsuit, ''Blesch v. Holder'', in the [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York|District Court for the Eastern District of New York]], claiming that Section 3 of DOMA violated their equal protection rights by denying the U.S. citizen in the relationship the same rights in the green card application process granted a U.S. citizen who is in a relationship of partners of the opposite sex.<ref name=blesch>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/immigration-equality-files-doma-challenge-obama-ad.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Immigration Equality Files DOMA Challenge, Obama Administration Left Them 'No Choice' |date=April 2, 2012 |access-date=April 2, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120406194353/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/immigration-equality-files-doma-challenge-obama-ad.html |archive-date=April 6, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On July 25, Chief Judge [[Carol Amon]] stayed the case pending the resolution of ''Windsor'' by the Second Circuit.<ref>{{cite web|title=Blesch v. Holder (Immigration Equality's DOMA case) put on hold|url=http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/qh/blesch-v-holder-immigration-equalitys-doma-case-put-on-hold/|publisher=Prop8TrialTracker|access-date=30 July 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130201002207/http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/qh/blesch-v-holder-immigration-equalitys-doma-case-put-on-hold/|archive-date=February 1, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Immigration rights advocate Lavi Soloway reported on June 19, 2012, that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had in four cases responded to green card denials on the part of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by asking the USCIS to document the marital status of the same-sex couples and determine whether the foreign national would qualify for a green card in the absence of DOMA Section 3. He said the BIA is "essentially setting the stage for being able to approve the petitions in a post-DOMA universe."<ref>{{cite web|work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/mote-than-a-year-ago.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Same-Sex Couples Facing Immigration Questions Receive Temporary Relief From DOJ Immigration Board |date=June 19, 2012 |access-date=June 19, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120621040500/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/mote-than-a-year-ago.html |archive-date=June 21, 2012 |df=mdy }}</ref>

On April 19, 2013, U.S. District Judge [[Consuelo Bland Marshall|Consuelo Marshall]] ordered that a suit brought in July 2012 by Jane DeLeon, a Philippine citizen, and her spouse, Irma Rodriguez, a U.S. citizen, could proceed as a class action. The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, contended that DeLeon was denied a residency waiver because of DOMA Section 3.<ref>{{cite news|title=Judge rules lesbian immigrant can challenge DOMA |url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/20/judge-rules-lesbian-immigrant-can-challenge-doma/|access-date=April 23, 2013 |newspaper=U-T San Diego |date=April 20, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Dobuzinskis|first=Alex|title=Lesbian immigrant from PH challenges US gay marriage ban|url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/07/13/12/lesbian-immigrant-ph-challenges-us-gay-marriage-ban|access-date=April 23, 2013|newspaper=ABS-CBN News|date=July 13, 2012}}</ref>

On June 28, 2013, the USCIS notified U.S. citizen Julian Marsh that it had approved the green card petition for his Bulgarian husband Traian Popov. Both are residents of Florida.<ref>{{cite news|title=Gay Couple Receives Green Card After Supreme Court Ruling: DOMA Project|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/gay-couple-green-card_n_3522323.html|access-date=June 30, 2013|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=June 29, 2013|first=Mollie|last=Reilly}}</ref> On July 3, the USCIS office in Centennial, Colorado, granted Cathy Davis, a citizen of Ireland, a green card based on her marriage to U.S. citizen Catriona Dowling.<ref>{{cite news |title=Boulder lesbian couple gets green card after DOMA falls - The Denver Post|url=http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23604690/lesbian-couple-from-boulder-get-green-card-after|access-date=July 6, 2013|newspaper=Denver Post|date=July 5, 2013|first=Joey|last=Bunch}}</ref>

==== Tribunals ====
In 2009, [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] Judge [[Stephen Reinhardt]] declared DOMA unconstitutional in ''in re Levenson'', an employment dispute resolution tribunal case, where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson.<ref>560 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2009).</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html |title=Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional |work=Los Angeles Times |date=February 9, 2009 |access-date=November 6, 2009}}</ref> As an employee of the federal judiciary, Levenson is prohibited from suing his employer in federal court. Rather, employment disputes are handled at employment dispute resolution tribunals in which a federal judge hears the dispute in their capacity as a dispute resolution official.

==Challenges to Section 2 in federal court==
Section 2 of DOMA states to give legal relief to any state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Section 2 posits [[States' rights#States' rights as code word|a conflict between states' rights and civil rights]].  Various federal lawsuits, some filed alongside challenges to Section 3, have challenged Section 2.
* ''In re Kandu'': A same-sex couple in the state of Washington, who had married in Canada, attempted to file a joint bankruptcy petition, but were not allowed to do so.<ref>''[https://www.domawatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf In re Kandu] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201028200530/https://www.domawatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf |date=October 28, 2020 }},'' 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004). Retrieved February 26, 2011.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=DOMA's Unlikely Victim's |work=The Advocate |date=September 28, 2004 |page=15 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_mQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA15 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref>
* ''Wilson v. Ake'', an unsuccessful attempt by a Florida same-sex couple, married in Massachusetts, to have their marriage license accepted in Florida.{{#tag:ref|The court held that in enacting Section 2 of DOMA "Congress’ actions are an appropriate exercise of its power to regulate conflicts between the laws of two different States" under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.<ref>''[[Wilson v. Ake]]'', 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005).</ref>|group=n}}
* ''Smelt v. Orange County'' and ''Smelt v. United States'': In February 2004, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer sued [[Orange County, California]], in federal court for refusing to issue them a marriage license. The district court ruled that the couple did not have [[Standing (law)|standing]] to challenge Section 2 of DOMA and rejected their challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3. On May 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit,<ref>''Smelt v. County of Orange'', [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1355261.html 447 F.3d 673] (9th Cir. 2006). Retrieved August 2, 2012.</ref> and on October 10 the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] refused to consider the couple's appeal.<ref name=baro>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ebar.com/|title=Bay Area Reporter|website=Bay Area Reporter}}</ref> On March 9, 2009, the same couple, having legally married in California, filed ''[[Smelt v. United States]]'', challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California's [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]].<ref>''Smelt v. United States'', [https://www.scribd.com/doc/15097245/Smelt-v-United-States-of-America-Notice-of-Removal Notice of Removal]. Retrieved November 6, 2009.</ref> District Judge [[David O. Carter]] dismissed the case on August 24, because the couple had not applied for and been denied any federal benefit and therefore lacked "an injury in fact."<ref>{{cite web |publisher=UPI |url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/25/Gay-California-couples-lawsuit-dismissed/UPI-41301251219816/ |title=Gay California couple's lawsuit dismissed |access-date=February 26, 2011}}</ref>
* ''Bishop v. United States'': Two lesbian couples in Oklahoma, one of which couples sought a marriage license and the other to have the state recognize either their Canadian marriage or their Vermont civil union.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11832346192541496082&q=Bishop+v.+Oklahoma& ''Bishop v. Oklahoma''], 447 F.Supp.2d 1239 (N.D. Okla. 2006). Retrieved February 8, 2012.</ref><ref>[https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okndce/4:2004cv00848/7495/148/0.pdf ''Bishop v. US''], No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW, slip op. (N.D. Okla. November 24, 2009). Retrieved August 1, 2012.</ref> The court stayed consideration of the case pending the outcome of ''Windsor''.  Later it ruled the couple challenging Section 2 did not have standing, but ruled Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional under ''[[Bishop v. Oklahoma]]''.

===''Obergefell v. Hodges''===
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' that the [[Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]] requires all U.S. state laws to recognize same-sex marriages.<ref name="Obergefell v. Hodges">{{cite court |litigants=Obergefell v. Hodges |vol=576 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=___ |pinpoint=___ |date=2015 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626145937/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf |archive-date=2015-06-26 |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2015 |quote=The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.}}</ref>  This left Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable.

==Repeal==
{{further|Respect for Marriage Act}}
On September 15, 2009, three Democratic members of Congress, [[Jerrold Nadler]] of New York, [[Tammy Baldwin]] of [[Wisconsin]], and [[Jared Polis]] of [[Colorado]], introduced legislation to repeal DOMA called the [[Respect for Marriage Act]]. The bill had 91 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/house-dems-take-aim-at-doma/ |author=Bernie Becker |title=House Dems Take Aim at Marriage Law |date=September 15, 2009 |access-date=July 15, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Washington_D_C_/Respect_for_Marriage_Act_Debuts/ |title=Respect for Marriage Act Debuts |last=Eleveld |first=Kerry |date=September 15, 2009 |work=The Advocate |access-date=September 15, 2009}}</ref> and was supported by Clinton, Barr, and several legislators who voted for DOMA.<ref>{{cite press release|title=The Respect for Marriage Act Garners Support of President Clinton and Former Rep. Bob Barr, DOMA's Original Author |url=http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/DOMA20090915.html |publisher=United States House of Representatives |date=September 15, 2009 |access-date=June 6, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110712092758/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/DOMA20090915.html |archive-date=July 12, 2011 }}</ref> Congressman [[Barney Frank]] and [[John Berry (administrator)|John Berry]], head of the Office of Personnel Management, did not support that effort, stating that "the backbone is not there" in Congress. Frank and Berry suggested DOMA could be overturned more quickly through lawsuits such as ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' filed by [[Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders]] (GLAD).<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=96326 |title=Frank Will Not Support DOMA Repeal |work=EDGE Boston |date=September 14, 2009 |access-date=July 21, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27385 |title= Berry—ENDA should be LGBT priority |date=September 28, 2009 |access-date=September 28, 2009 |work=[[Washington Blade]] |first=Chris |last=Johnson|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002135248/http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27385|archive-date=October 2, 2009}}</ref>

Following Holder's announcement that the Obama Administration would no longer defend DOMA Section 3 in court, on March 16, 2011, Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate again<ref>{{USBill|112|S.|598}}</ref> and Nadler introduced it in the House.<ref>{{USBill|112|H.R.|1116}}</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10–8 in favor of advancing the bill to the Senate floor, but observers believed it would not gain the 60 votes needed to end debate and bring it to a vote.<ref>{{cite news |title=Senate panel OKs repeal of Defense of Marriage Act |agency=Associated Press |work=USA Today |date=November 10, 2011 |url= https://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-10/democrats-gay-marriage/51152184/1}}</ref>

After the Supreme Court [[United States v. Windsor|struck down DOMA Section 3]] on June 26, 2013, Feinstein and Nadler reintroduced the Respect for Marriage Act as {{USBill|113|S.|1236}} and {{USBill|113|H.R.|2523}}. The Respect for Marriage Act cleared the 60 vote filibuster hurdle on November 16, 2022, when the Senate voted 62–37 to advance it.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Karni |first=Annie |date=16 November 2022 |title=Same-Sex Marriage Rights Bill Clears a Crucial Senate Hurdle |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/16/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-bill-senate.html?unlocked_article_code=gfJM2KL_MkDuV6VhYc0NZ3g7VV75IH-7kaKMYK_6LW_JEm1OxwFvfA0BTuyRzfSu9bBhjk3M1TWQDUS4l3w75kqotuASOz4qKZPjfgCgXz0AqgmPWzIW9x74ehW6Z5eRpg0HBep8rox80S8YaZet06MbGoZZgJVNcnLOzdTDb70quYHJUyRJT40icYr3m7ELLesjTnQGmF0a0EOnocIHeemK3qThO633OjgMJSe88CtXj1eJYoczLmCWhGHz8IW9Cj1qbX0W2ZpdT1J5fP0Bs5SeLb2QzCV3odu7dgiOAX8uk9YFiFJmmHuUy_Vj2pBH-geRYP7aazH-5sRnxJNfw2Fp8B-OanbvCVrK&smid=em-share |access-date=17 November 2022 |quote=...it would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples.}}</ref> Joe Biden signed the repeal on December 13, 2022.

==See also==
* [[LGBT rights in the United States]]
* [[Marriage Protection Act]] (2004)
* [[Same-sex unions in the United States]]
* [[Respect for Marriage Act]] (2022)

== Explanatory notes ==
{{reflist|group=n}}

== Citations ==
{{reflist}}

== General and cited references section ==
* [[Brenda Feigen|Feigen, Brenda]]. "Same-Sex Marriage: An Issue of Constitutional rights not Moral Opinions". 2004. 27 ''Harv. Women's L. J.'' 345.
* Carter, W. Burlette. "The Federal Law of Marriage:  Deference, Deviation and DOMA." 2013. 21 ''Am. U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol'y & L'' 70; [http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/701/ The 'Federal Law of Marriage': Deference, Deviation, and DOMA]
* "Same Sex Marriage Passage". ''CQ Weekly''. Congressional Quarterly. May 2, 2005.
* "Litigating the Defense of Marriage Act: The Next Battleground for Same-Sex Marriage." 2004. 117 ''Harv. L. Rev.'' 2684. {{doi|10.2307/4093411}}. {{JSTOR|4093411}}.
* {{cite web |last=Manning |first=Jason |date=April 30, 2004 |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/act.html |title=Backgrounder: The Defense of Marriage Act |access-date=January 13, 2007 |work=The Online News Hour |publisher=The News Hour with Jim Lehrer |archive-date=November 9, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131109001618/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/act.html |url-status=dead }}
* 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==
{{Wikisource|Defense of Marriage Act}}
{{Wikinews category}}
* [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr3396 GovTrack]
* [https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396 Library of Congress]

{{LGBTQ rights in the United States}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Defense Of Marriage Act}}
[[Category:Defense of Marriage Act| ]]
[[Category:1996 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:1996 in American law]]
[[Category:Acts of the 104th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Clinton administration controversies]]
[[Category:Discrimination against LGBTQ people in the United States]]
[[Category:LGBTQ rights in the United States]]
[[Category:Repealed United States legislation]]
[[Category:Same-sex marriage in the United States]]
[[Category:United States federal civil rights legislation]]