Veronica Clark

Professor Johnson

Government

15 November 2014

Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act is a piece of legislation built on momentum of backlash

against the pro-gay equality movement that appeared in popular culture in the late twentieth

century. It is not a movement that was sudden or out of the blue, but rather a movement

appearing out of multiple civil rights movements and revolts of the 1960s, and the call for

equality among fellow U.S. citizens This was coming from a cultural disposition engrained in a

long tradition of shaming, embarrassing, and discouraging the embracing of the individual self

because of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious orientation, etc. that was not in the vision of

“correct” by the white protestant males who were always in Congress.

The 1960s was a time of revolt against the normal, a time of embracing of revolution

against racism and patriarchy, finding a home in black power and feminism, two significant

cultural movements that became prominent during this time. This level of forward-thinking

movements and call for equality had never been seen before in significance in the short history of

the U.S. This new level of the promotion of individuality and self-acceptance and call for

equality in law (and in everyday societal life) brought about causes of other societal minorities,

and the gay equality movement was born. June 28, 1969 is seen as the “official start” of the gay

rights movement, with the occurrence of The Stonewall Riots. At the time, there were not many

places where people could be openly gay. New York had laws prohibiting homosexuality in

public, and private businesses and gay establishments were regularly raided and shut down.

Police raided a popular unlicensed gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, in New York City's

Greenwich Village. Police reinforcements arrived and beat the crowd away, but the next night,

the crowd returned, even larger than the night before, with numbers reaching over 1000. For

hours, protesters rioted outside the Stonewall Inn until the police sent a riot-control squad to

disperse the crowd. For days following, demonstrations of varying intensity took place

throughout the city. The riots, which lasted for days, were triggered by police harassment of gays

according to media reports. The riots inspired LGBT people throughout the country to organize

in support of gay rights, and within two years after the riots, gay rights groups had been started in

nearly every major city in the United States.

The 1970s started off with a bang with the gay rights movement. Momentum had been

building throughout the country stemming from the Stonewall Riots, and on June 27-28 (the

anniversary of the Stonewall Riots) the first gay pride parades were held in New York, Chicago,

Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Several participants in the parade were wary of the potential

public reaction to gay men, women and drag queens walking in solidarity through the streets of

upper Manhattan. Everyone involved knew that homophobia remained rampant in society, and

the parades were a statement of rebellion against that. A participant in the parade, Doric Wilson,

said ”In those days, the idea of walking in daylight, with a sign saying, 'I'm a faggot,' was

horrendous; nobody, nobody was ready to do that.” Hundreds of supporters started to join the

parade, and the crowd marched with growing joy and gusto from Greenwich Village into uptown

Manhattan and Central Park, holding gay pride signs and banners, chanting "Say it clear, say it

loud. Gay is good, gay is proud.” Another significant event of the 70s (perhaps monumental in

awareness of gay people as human beings deserving of respect rather than being seen as almost a

separate entity by conservatives) was the removal of Homosexuality being seen as a mental

disorder in 1973 by The American Psychological Association’s Board of Trustees; influenced by

psychologist Dr. Robert Spitzer, who provided data showing there was no clear link between

homosexuality and mental illness. San Francisco was considered a hub and almost safe place for

the advocation of gay rights during the late 1970s. Many active members of the gay community

were appearing from San Francisco, Harvey Milk, a San Franciscan politician who won a seat on

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in early 1978, being one of them. Harvey Milk became a

prominent figure in the gay community during this time by being a strong advocate and leader

for gay rights in the area’s politics, urging gay people to be brave and unrelenting when

demanding equality in their everyday lives. Sadly, Milk and Mayor George Moscone were

assassinated by former supervisor Dan White, but Harvey Milk’s legacy and prominence made

him a martyr of sorts, after assassination, in the gay community.

Gay rights struggles truly came into the spotlight during the 1980s, when the AIDS

epidemic cast a light on the truly unequal rights and responsibilities of marriage that same-sex

couples did not have compared to heterosexual couples in the U.S. Having this disease that was

killing gay people by the thousands and tens of thousands brought the idea of rights of a married

couple into play with same-sex spouses not being able to visit their partners in the hospital; estate

taxes begin through the roof after a spouse died for the remaining spouse because of no tax

breaks for non-legally married couples. The whole situation of same-sex couples desperately

needing (for financial and emotional suability) rights and responsibilities usually granted to

heterosexual married couples in the U.S. became more and more important, and the call for

equality in they gay community was spreading throughout the country, and to other social

activists who were interested in the cause out of humanity, not out of a personal agenda.

As activism grew exponentially in the gay community, controversy and antagonism to

gay rights grew almost at the same rate. In the United States pre-1960s, if you were gay you

would almost always keep it under wraps and would not make it known publicly, let alone

declare it proudly and demand to be treated in the same manner as any straight citizen. This

newfound sense of pride and embracing of sexuality and sense of self was being heavily

criticized and scrutinized by many conservative counterparts in politics. The question of gay

rights became a political issue instead of just a social one, and questions such as “Should gay

people be allowed to teach in school?”, “should gay people be allowed in the military?”, “Should

gay couples be allowed to have children/families?” were being not just asked, but highly debated

in upper level courts. The role of religion in these decisions (in Congress member personal lives

and political platforms as well as voters decisions) became confusing in trying to determine the

line between church and state, and government decisions were starting to be put into place by

political leaders opposing the newly developed gay rights advocation in the U.S.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is the first of these laws proceeding the backlash by conservative

politicians concerning the gay rights revolution that had been happening in the past few decades

in politics. Thew law was passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and prevented gays from openly

serving in the military. Under it, an estimated 13,000 people were expelled from the U.S. Armed

Forces. This openly very anti-gay policy was the precedent for an even bigger anti-gay bill that

would have even more devastating affects to the gay rights movement’s momentum.

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed on September 21, 1996. It was signed into

law by President Bill Clinton after being introduced into the House of Representatives by Rob

Barr and passing the House with a vote of 342-67 and passing the Senate with a vote of 85-14.

There was heavy speculation of Bill Clinton being a Democrat and signing such a

conservative bill into law, especially seeing as he signed the bill in two months before his re-

election. This gained him some much-needed support from conservative voters and politicians,

probably contributing heavily to him winning the re-election of 1996. Political scientists call the

passing of DOMA by Bill clinton him “throwing a bone” to the conservative politicians he would

be working with throughout the next four years of his second term as President, but the price

payed was multiple liberties of same-sex couples and their families.

The logistics of DOMA are, as policy often is, complicated. There are three sections of

the document, the first just stating the basis of DOMA meaning Defense of Marriage Act. The

second section of DOMA states that same sex-marriage “Powers is reserved to 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.” This means that no matter the feral decision on allowing same-sex marriage in the

U.S. or not, the states decision to allow same-sex marriage was their prerogative and the federal

government should not interfere with the individual states’ decision on that. Section three of

DOMA gives the specific “Definition of marriage and spouse.” “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,” meaning that section 3 is the most

discriminatory piece of legislation against gays/lesbians that has been in existence in our

government. Because Section three defines marriage as a “union between man and woman,” it

gave same-sex couples and families of the time none of the federal benefits and rights associated

with marriage between a man and woman in the U.S. at that time. These include insurance

benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy,

and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws

protecting families of federal officers, and laws evaluating financial aid eligibility. All together,

section 3 of DOMA denied legally married same-sex couples over 1100 rights and

responsibilities of marriage.

Although the repressive nature of DOMA was extremely controversial and intensely

debated in American politics, the legislature stayed intact for years, until 2013 when the case of

Windsor v. United States changed the law and how people viewed it. Same sex couple Edith

Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer registered as domestic partners in 1993 in New York. Later, the

couple became legally married in Canada in 2007. Two years later, Spyer passed away due to

multiple sclerosis and she left everything to Windsor in her will, including estate. New York

denied Windsor a spousal reduction on federal state taxes, leaving Windsor to pay over $363,000

in estate taxes. Windsor moved forward with lawsuit seeking full refund of federal estate taxes

& a declaration saying that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection

Clause of 5th Amendment and she won. The court invalidated DOMA in a 5-4 ruling.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion stating “DOMA violates basic due process

and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.”

This win was a huge victory for gay rights advocates and activists, and by repelling

section 3 of DOMA, gave many same-sex couples the right to a marriage and family like any

other citizens of the United States. The countless rights and benefits now available to same-sex

couples include: health insurance and pension protections for federal employees’ spouses; social

security benefits for widows/widowers; support and benefits for military spouses and families;

joint income tax filing and exemption from federal estate taxes; immigration protections for

binational couples; rights to creative/intellectual property; political contribution laws; hospital

visitation rights; healthcare benefits (because different organizations base benefits off of where a

couple lives, as opposed to where they were married, those legally married but live in a state

without marriage equality may not be privy to the newly accessible benefits).

The victory of this ruling, after decades of fighting for equal protection and rights for gay

people, is such a landmark and accomplishment for fairness and equality of all citizens of the

United States.