The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background
Challenges from the Court
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

In 1996, the US congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was a federal regulation that explained marriage within the precincts of law. It stated that marriage is a consensual union between one man and one woman. The law was supported by the assembly and was consequently consented by the president. Under the same establishment, no authority could come up with another law recognizing same sex relationships as marriage.

The law extended its rules to other organs of society, including the insurance sector, health sector and the employment sector (Ignatieff 90). However, the court has so far termed the law unconstitutional. The Massachusetts court ruled twice that the law is inapplicable in society.

Equally, the California court has also claimed that the law cannot be applied to resolve emerging issues in society. Defendants of the law have moved to court to challenge the recent rulings by the two courts. In 2011, the Obama regime came to the realization that the law was against the wishes and desires of the majority in society.

Thus, the administration stated that it would implement it but could not support it in court. Due to this declaration, the House of Representatives vowed to support the law, claiming that it was representing the federal government.

This article will examine some of the issues that affect the DOMA law, specifically the court rulings. The court has always opposed the law because it does not represent the interests of the majority in society. To understand the intricacies of the law, the paper will give its background briefly and proceed to give examples of how the court has always frustrated the political elites supporting the DOMA regulations.

Background

Marriage as a social basic unit was uncontested until the early 1980s when some gay groups raised concerns over their mistreatment in society. The groups wanted to be granted the right to marry their fellow men as sexual partners. In early years, a gay activist had tried to persuade the court to allow him marry a male partner.

In Barker v. Nelson, the court ruled that restricting marriage to members of opposite sex was in accordance to the provisions of the US constitution. In 1989, the State Bar Association of California requested the government to allow marriages between people of same-sex.

Consequently, the high court ruled that same sex marriage could only happen under special circumstances (Lauren 32). This could only happen due to expenses incurred by individuals in the city and the deteriorating standards of living. In 1993, the Hawaiian Supreme Court observed in Baehr v. Mike case that the state should give detailed reasons as to why homosexuality should not be allowed in society.

In 1996, republicans were much concerned about the rising cases of homosexuality. This encouraged them to draft a bill that would contain the vice. Republican representative, Bob Barr, introduced the bill to the House of Representatives chamber while Senator Don Nickles took it to the senate.

Both houses approved the bill but the democrats interpreted it in terms of politics. Clinton approved the bill since there was little time left for campaigns. In 2002, the Republican Party reiterated that it supported the DOMA principles and went a notch higher to claim that the judiciary was against the law (Ishay 51).

In 2004, the Bush administration sanctioned DOMA principles and cautioned that the judges were interpreting the law in a way that could easily cause confusion in society. Accordingly, the Bush administration was keen to support the law in court, including the case in Washington termed as In re Kandu, the Florida case termed as Wilson v. Ake where two women wanted to legalize their marriage, and the Bishop v. Oklahoma case.

In 2008 political manifesto, Obama promised Americans to support the repealing of DOMA principles. However, since the issue was still under contention, the Justice Department supported the DOMA rules in Smelt v. United States case. In 2009, human rights groups pushed the president to sponsor a bill that could repeal DOMA principles from the constitution.

Consequently, the government decided not to defend the law in court since it believed that it was unconstitutional and went against the wishes of the majority. The government did not send representatives to the Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States cases.

Challenges from the Court

Same sex groups tried to change the sections of the DOMA law but the political class thwarted their efforts. For instance, the defendants of the DOMA principles defeated a joint bankruptcy petition of same-sex couples in Washington. In 2009, the US Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that DOMA was illegal and could not be applied in resolving cases related employment.

The federal authorities declined to offer spousal benefits to one of the complainants because of the DOMA law. In 2008, Golinski filed a case demanding for health benefits from her spouse. The chief Judge declared that she was indeed entitled to marriage benefits, even though the Office of Personnel Management had rejected her claims due to DOMA rules.

The office of personnel management refused to pay her since the complainant had violated the DOMA rules. Golinski filed a court case against OPM in another court to enforce the ruling of the previous judge. Even though White, the judge in charge, dismissed her claims, she was given a confirmation to adjust her case, which would challenge the illegality of DOMA.

In 2011, Paul Clement, the former US Solicitor General acting on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group challenged the legality of DOMA law in court. Clement argued that the definition of marriage was discriminative, something that the Justice Department avoided for years.

With this realization, the Department of Justice moved to court to challenge the provisions of DOMA, arguing that the law violated the rights of gays and lesbians. The DOJ argued in the same way as Golinki, claiming that homosexuals have never enjoyed their rights, which are contained in the constitution. The Department of Justice further observed that gays and lesbians receive unfair treatment from societal members.

On the other hand, religious groups, which are usually stakeholders in governmental policymaking, argued that the Department of Justice had decided to attack DOMA principles (Okihiro 17). The church claimed that the activities of the jury could cause conflicts between the church and the state.

According to the church, the state had allowed immoral conducts to go on in society. On 22 February 2012, the judge in charge (White) ruled in favor of Golinski, claiming that section 3 of DOMA violates the rights and freedoms of Golinski, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment. The judge further claimed that no authority had the powers to deny another individual his or her rights provided in the constitution (Adam 7). Therefore, the homosexuals had the right to exercise as they wish.

In Smelt v. County of Orange case, the DOMA principles were also faulted. The couple wanted to be identified as legal marriage partners but the court refused to recognize their union. The couple filed another court order on 9 March 2009. The couple challenged the legality of DOMA, as well as Proposition 8. Even though the jury dismissed the case, the couple was allowed to marry and could access all federal benefits such as employment, healthcare and many more.

Conclusion

From the above analysis, it can be concluded that DOMA principles were unpopular to the majority of Americans right from the beginning. The law deprives people of their democratic rights and freedoms. In the US, the Fifth Amendment allows individuals to exercise whatever they feel is right for them, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other individuals. The issue of morality has been debatable since 1980s when AIDS was first tested.

Those against homosexuality claimed that gay-sex was not safe as regards to disease transmission. On their part, homosexuals have gone through difficult times trying to lobby the government to accept their wishes. The government has always given them a cold treatment because the majority of policy makers in government believe that homosexuality is immoral.

However, the courts have stepped in to help homosexuals redefine the Fifth Amendment, which grants each citizen the right to freedom of expression. The Obama administration realized that many people were against the provisions of the DOMA law. The government has consequently decided to distance itself from the DOMA law.

Works Cited

Adam, Barry. The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York: G. K. Hall & Co, 1987. Print.

Ignatieff, Michael. American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print.

Ishay, Micheline. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization. 2nd ed. California: University of California Press, 2008. Print.

Lauren, Gordon (2003). The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. 2nd ed. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Print.

Okihiro, Gary. Margins and Mainstreams: Asians in American History and Culture. Washington, Dc: University of Washington Press, 1994. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!