The document discusses the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was enacted in 1996 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It argues DOMA is discriminatory and takes away over 1,000 federal benefits from same-sex couples. While supporters claim DOMA protects traditional marriage, the document argues there is no evidence legalizing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriages. It concludes that DOMA marginalizes the LGBT community and advocates for its repeal.

1. 1
The Defense of Marriage Act: Mandated Discrimination
Cooper Carriger
UCWR 110-031
Dr. John Jacobs
16 April 2012

2.
2
Marriage is the exclusive life-commitment made between two people who have
built a relationship based on respect, trust, mutual understanding, and most importantly,
love. Not only is it a deeply meaningful union between two people, but also a critical
social institution that has been the foundation of families, communities, and societies for
thousands of years. Throughout history marriage has adapted to our progressive world.
What was once a narrowly defined institution adapted to become monogamous,
interracial, and interreligious. The latest controversy in marriage is whether or not
society—and by extension government—should expand its definition to include partners
of the same sex.
Despite some variations of the same-sex marriage/ union being recognized in 18
states, the US government has reacted strongly by implementing the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA); a federal statute that discriminates and marginalizes gay and lesbian
couples from fully receiving their entitled rights to legally marry. Those who support the
ban of same-sex marriage argue a variety of claims, overall proclaiming that homosexual
relations undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Other arguments include: creating a slippery slope for government to allow such practices
as polygamy and incest in the future; protecting the status quo of marriage; and formal
recognition of same-sex marriages will promote gay and lesbian relationships and
“lifestyles.” All which are claims virtually unwarranted. DOMA is a reactionary law in
response to the conservative movement’s hysteria to the growing acceptance for lesbian
and gay people. The law has overall negative effects that come as a consequence from
societal and governmental prejudice of a marginalized group. Americans should wholly
support a repeal of the Defense of marriage act, by advocating for equality and

3. 3
acceptance, recognizing that marriage should not be provocatively used as a tool of
discrimination.
In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act (Pub. L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419) was
signed into law by President Bill Clinton as a measure to strongly suppress the legitimacy
of same-sex marriages—if they ever were to legally occur in the United States. At the
time of signage there were neither legally recognized same-sex marriages nor anything
that resembed such a union. So why did the 104th Congress create a law regulating
something that was not even in existence? As an act of preemption: in 1996 there was a
proposed bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii. If it passed, what would
be its implications? Would it affect other states? Would they have to recognize these
marriages? Would government agencies and employers be forced into providing benefits
and the same treatments already in place for heterosexual marriages? And would this
undermine American values, especially ones surrounding religion and family? The
consequences seemed endless and possibly destructive to the nation as a whole.
Without haste, Congress quickly passed DOMA with strong bipartisan support in
order to combat the looming cloud of same-sex marriage on the horizon.
The Act has only two key provisions, which successfully discourages same-sex
marriage. First, DOMA defines “the word 'marriage' meaning 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.” (H.R. 110 Stat. 2419). It also
denies same-sex couples all federal benefits that heterosexual couples are entitled to.
Essentially, the federal government has made it illegal for any federal agency, bureau, or
branch to recognize same-sex marriages. Furthermore, same-sex couples are not included

4.
4
in the national census, able to file federal taxes jointly, or receive federal benefits such as
social security. Conjointly, any employee of the federal government who is in a same-sex
marriage will not receive spousal benefits such as health insurance, life insurance,
diplomatic immunity, or visitation rights. For example, if their spouse is in a work-related
accident they do not have the legal right to be notified. If a spouse is working overseas
and an emergency evacuation is needed, the same-sex spouse does not have the guarantee
to be evacuated with their partner (Nguyen 139-14
The second provision allows states to completely bypass Article IV Section I of
the US Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, as it would pertain to same-sex
marriages. The full faith and credit clause allows states to recognize and respect laws and
procedures from other states. This is why Americans can conveniently receive a driver’s
license in one state, and legally be able to drive in the other 49 states. It allows states to
extradite people committed of crimes to their respective state. Also, this is why marriage
licenses issued in one state are universally recognized by all states. Provision two of
DOMA gives each state the right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other
states, while simultaneously guaranteeing heterosexual couples that their marriages will
still be universally recognized (H.R. 110 Stat. 2419).
Certainly any enacted law that takes away the rights and liberties from Americans
seeks to serve a clear and legitimate purpose for the common good. Take state seat belt
laws for example. This law takes away the right of people not to use seat belts when
riding in a car and punishes them if caught not doing so. However, the law is publically
embraced. It not only dramatically decreases the amount of fatalities in automobile

5. 5
accidents, but also minimizes the healthcare required for injuries—ultimately decreasing
national healthcare insurance due to less costly medical attention required.
Surely, any controversial federal statute, such as DOMA which takes away the
right to marry for some Americans, would have the same clear and legitimate purpose of
serving the common good—similar to seatbelt statutes.
One of the most common arguments for defending the exclusivity of marriage to
be a purely heterosexual union is by allowing same sex marriage, opposite sex marriage
is inherently undermined and all its sanctity is lost. The Family Research Council, a
conservative lobbying group, claims, “Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that
lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all
counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be
immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable” (Dailey 4). This may
be true for religious institutions and they are given the right to protect their respective
ideas of marriage within their organizations. For example, Catholic churches are allowed
to require annulments for their members before a second marriage and can refuse to
marry Protestants or homosexuals. This is their legal right to religious freedom explicitly
given to them by the constitution.
However, the United States government is in no way a religious institution, nor in
any part of the constitution does it read that the government is to seek to “preserve the
sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.” If this were true, the
government would have enacted laws that limit the amount of marriages one can obtain,
and not grant divorces. Instances such as Britney Spear’s 55-hour marriage, or current
GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich’s multiple marriages due to notorious rumors

6.
6
of infidelity, exemplify the lacking sanctity of marriage. Proponents of protecting the
reputation of the institution should be more concerned with heterosexuals devaluing the
beauty of marriage than homosexuals. It is offensive to consider that same sex couples
making a commitment and building a life together would take away anything from the
relationships of heterosexual couples. DOMA seeks to protect the religious exclusivity of
marriage outside their jurisdiction.
As with religious exclusivity, some argue that same-sex marriage should not be
legal because same-sex couples cannot reproduce. If this were a legitimate claim, then the
US government or religious institutions would not allow infertile couples to marry, nor
couples that are fertile but never wish to have children. Also, gay and lesbian couples can
adopt or seek to reproduce through alternative methods such as in vitro fertilization, or
surrogacy.
Some opponents of same-sex marriage are concerned that it will not only
encourage these relationships, but could be a slippery slope that would eventually allow
other taboo relationships such as polygamy, as stated by current Presidential Candidate,
Rick Santorum in a 2003 Associated Press Interview:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within
your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy,
you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to
anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it
does. ... That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child,
man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. (AP)

7. 7
The first argument can be diminished by Pamela Clarkson-Freeman’s dissertation in the
Journal of Homosexuality:
The two problems with this argument are that it assumes that homosexuality is a
characteristic that can be affected by approbation. Second, even if homosexuality
can and should be discouraged there is reason to doubt the viability of this tack. A
bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate
governmental interest. (11)
The second argument is invalid because current laws against polygamy are only for
protection of monogamy and the stability it brings to society—something that same-sex
marriages also seek.
Another common argument is that DOMA is only reinforcing and protecting the
“Status Quo” of marriage. But this ideology seems to undermine the American value of
progress. DOMA seeks to limit marriage between only a man and a woman in the same
way that past legislation limited marriages to be between only two people of the same
race, or when states were not allowed to legally recognize marriage of slaves. Also, if the
state of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman was so widely and
commonly accepted as a status quo, then there would be no need at all to even have a
statute—because it would be uncontended. The US is built on the concepts of innovation,
progress, and possibilities. It has never been a country that has tried to remain standstill
in the pursuit of happiness of its citizens.
Since the two main provisions of DOMA are explicitly taking away privileges
from same-sex couples, what are the negative consequences of this?

8.
8
The most sensitive and probably most contended is that by prohibiting same-sex
marriage, DOMA is devaluing gay and lesbian partnerships, and thus the people
themselves. By discriminating marriage against gays and lesbians purely for no other
reason other than their biological predisposition is an incredibly personal attack on each
member of the LGBT community—especially now a days given the recent string of gay
teen suicides resulting from bullying. DOMA is a public statement insinuating it is not
okay to be different; that if you identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, that there is
something wrong with you—and your relationship will never be recognized on the same
pedestal as your straight counterparts. There are already an array of prejudices and
stereotypes that disease our society, but by the government creating legally binding
discrimination, it only further solidifies these ideologies. Ultimately, DOMA is a piece of
legislation that marginalizes a specific community, demeaning people who are not a part
of the majority, and takes a large step back in guaranteeing equal rights for all
Americans.
The tangible benefits DOMA deprives same-sex couples of is almost limitless.
There are hundreds of legal and economic benefits that married couples are entitled to.
According to the US General Accounting Office, there are “1,138 federal statutory
provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges
are contingent on marital status…”(Frist 1). These benefits not applicable to same sex
couples include but are not limited to: receiving spousal veteran’s benefits, including
pension and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts and property sales;
receiving marital tax credit, and being able to file federal taxes jointly; federal employee
spousal benefits; acquired citizenship through marriage right; social security; food

9. 9
stamps, subsidized housing, and other related welfare programs; life insurance; health
insurance; disability; and loan payback guarantees from the government; the list goes on
(Hyde 2). Not only does this create a large unnecessary financial burden for committed
same-sex couples, but also a double standard in comparison to heterosexual marriages.
Federal government employees have the most benefits to loose due to DOMA.
They cannot receive any of the previously mentioned benefits because the federal
government is their direct employer. This discourages members of the LGBT community
from working for the federal government. This has a trickle down effect on society, as
highly qualified people are reluctant to take government jobs because they can find better
benefits elsewhere. Depriving US citizens of services that should be performed by the
most qualified people, some of those being gay or lesbian.
Lastly, The Defense of Marriage Act is outdated and incongruent with public
opinion trends. According to the Pew Research Center, “most say that homosexuality
should be accepted by society.” Only 33% reporting that homosexuality should be
discouraged (PRC 1). Conjointly, since DOMA’s enactment in 1996, public disapproval
of gay marriage has fallen 19% to 46% disapproval—meaning more people in the nation
currently approve or are unsure of same-sex marriage than disapprove (PRC 2). This
shows that the current federal statute is quickly growing out of touch with what the
American people believe. Recently the Obama Administration has recognized this public
opinion and has instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend DOMA in court; a
promising first step in repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.
However, society can’t rely on just the Obama Administration or Congress to
repeal DOMA in a swift and decisive manner. Constituents need to advocate for marriage

10.
10
equality by contacting their elected representatives in Washington and expressing their
support for legal recognition of same-sex partners. Secondly, people can start the
conversation in their communities about why guaranteeing equal rights for all Americans,
regardless of their sexuality, is something that is beneficial to our nation as a whole. The
Defense of Marriage Act is a constitutionally offensive statute that seeks to marginalize a
specific group in society, by devaluing their relationships and families; lacking virtually
any sensible legal or social support. Giving gay and lesbian couples their entitled right to
marriage will only bring more stability to society because it sets the unyielding precedent
of social justice.

11. 11
Works Cited
The Associate Press. "Excerpt from Santorum Interview." USA Today. Gannett, 23 Apr.
2003. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-
23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm>.
Clarkson Freeman, Pamela A. "The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA): Its Impact On
Those Seeking Same-Sex Marriages." Journal Of Homosexuality 48.2 (2004): 1-
19. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Dailey, Timothy J. The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage. Washington, D.C.: Family
Research Council, 2004. Print.
Frist, The Honorable William. “Defense of Marriage Act.” U.S. General Accounting
Office. GAO-04-353R. 23 Jan. 2004.
Jost, K. (2008, September 26). Gay marriage showdowns. CQ Researcher, 18, 769-792.
Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
H.R. 110 Stat. 2419, 104th Cong., 1996 US Government Printing Office (1996)
(enacted). Print.
Hyde, The Honorable Henry J. “Defense of Marriage Act.” U.S. General Accounting
Office. Office of the General Council. GAO/OGC-97-16. 31 Jan. 1997
Nguyen, Nam. "Just a Gay Spouse." Realities of Foreign Service Life. Lincoln: Writers
Club, 2002. 139-43. Print.
(PRC 1)"Support for Gay Marriage Nearly Matches Opposition." Chart. Pew Research
Center Publications. Pew Research Center, 3 Mar. 2011. Web. 7 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.people-press.org/2011/03/03/section-3-attitudes-toward-social-
issues/>.

12.
12
(PRC 2) "Support For Acceptance of Homosexuality." Chart. Pew Research Center
Publications. The Pew Research Center, 13 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Apr. 2012.
<http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1994/poll-support-for-acceptance-of-
homosexuality-gay-parenting-marriage>.
Other sources used but not explicitly cited:
Adam, Barry D. "The Defense Of Marriage Act And American Exceptionalism: The
"Gay Marriage" Panic In The United States." Journal Of The History Of Sexuality
12.2 (2003): 259-276. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2012.
Defense of Marriage Act (1996). Andrew Koppelman.Major Acts of Congress. Ed. Brian
K. Landsberg. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. p198-199.
Gay Marriage Controversy. World History Encyclopedia. Ed. Alfred J. Andrea and
Carolyn Neel. Vol. 19: Era 9: Promises and Paradoxes, 1945-Present. Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2011. p146-148.
Marriage, Same-Sex.International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A.
Darity, Jr. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. p619-621.