Whether or not the federal government recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples can be very important in their lives. As a result of DOMA, married same-sex couples are denied things like:. Furthermore, one of the most basic things that spouses often provide for each other is access to workplace health benefits. Many employers do provide equal access to health benefits to the spouses of all their employees—different sex and same-sex alike.
But because the federal government does not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, lesbian and gay employees who sign their spouses up for health insurance must pay income taxes on the amount of the premium as if that were part of their paycheck.
Different-sex couples whose employers provide family health care coverage can enroll in that coverage tax-free. Beyond all those tangible things, it's very upsetting to couples who are legally married to have their federal government completely disregard their marriages and families.
The damage it causes for our families must end. It was an awkward moment for Mr. Clinton, who had done more than any previous president to court the gay community and promote gay rights, but he believed that Republicans were trying to steer him out of what was then the mainstream and damage his chances for a second term. Instead, President Clinton merely released a short five paragraph statement which moved quickly from DOMA to, "urg ing Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace.
ENDA has been discussed repeatedly on Capitol Hill over the years, most recently in , but has never become law. That's how DOMA became the law of the land in , but a deeper question is why.
The issue came up during the Supreme Court's oral arguments on the law. Justice Elena Kagan asked the question this way:. In truth, the answer seems to be some of both. Former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored DOMA which is only two printed pages , said to his colleagues at the time, "The very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned. Following a ruling of the U. It means the federal government has to recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples.
Because of Section 2 of DOMA, the ruling does not require any state to legalize or recognize a lawful marriage from another state. The ruling on DOMA will have major effects on families concerning a number of different federal rights which provide necessary marital benefits. Some areas that are affected include military family benefits, social security benefits, multiple areas of tax categories, hospital visitation rights, and healthcare benefits.
These are just a few of the numerous marital benefits that were denied to families because of DOMA, but will now be granted to same-sex couples in legal marriages. Those that are married in a state where marriage equality is legal, but live in a state where it is not may have a harder time receiving benefits.
Because different organizations base benefits off of where a couple lives, as opposed to where they were married, those who are legally married but live in a state without marriage equality may not be privy to the newly accessible benefits. Because the federal government now recognizes benefits under DOMA, binational couples will be allowed to sponsor foreign-born spouses for United States residency.
A military family living in a state with marriage equality will be granted federal benefits now that DOMA is repealed. These well-earned benefits include, military health insurance, increased base and housing allowances, relocation assistance, and surviving spousal benefits. The Department of Defense will extend all benefits to same-sex spouses of military personnel that are currently extended to opposite-sex spouses, including medical, dental, interment at Arlington National Cemetery, and with-dependent Basic Allowance for Housing.
One of the major arguments from proponents of DOMA was that same-sex marriage could lead to alternative family formations and could even result in incestuous relationships and polygamous marriage.
In in United States v. Windsor , the U. Furthermore, in in Obergefell v.
0コメント