Defense of Marriage Act
The Defense of Marriage Act (also abbreviated as DOMA ) is the name often applied to a United States federal law , officially the pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and is set out in 1 USC § 7 and 28 USC § 1738C. The law initially had two effects:
- No US state or other political subdivision within the United States (commune, territory, district, etc.) is required to treat or grant rights to a connection between people of the same sex as marriage , even if the connection is deemed to be marriage in another state. (Paragraph 2)
- For the federal government , “marriage” denotes a legal relationship between a man and a woman, and “spouse” is a person of the opposite sex. (Paragraph 3)
Paragraph 3 of the law, which defines marriage for purposes of federal law, was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in June 2013 . Paragraph 2, which states whether or not to recognize marriages between persons of the same sex, is not affected.
background
According to the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution in conjunction with Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution , the federal government does not permit the exercise of family law competences (e.g. definition of marriage), but these are of to regulate the individual states. In 1993 the Hawaiian Supreme Court (Baehr v. Lewin) ruled that the state could not prohibit same-sex marriage unless there were serious reasons , and in 1996 the first instance ruled that the reasons presented by the state of Hawaii did not justify the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Although this decision was not yet final, advocates of exclusive heterosexual marriage were concerned because Article IV, paragraph 1 of the federal constitution stipulates that every state must recognize the laws and processes of the other states. The Defense of Marriage Act was brought into Congress as a bill, as an expression of the political culture of the United States at the time, which largely rejected same-sex marriages.
The law received a majority of 342:67 votes in the House of Representatives on July 12, 1996 and a majority of 85:14 in the Senate on September 10, 1996 . In the Senate, all - 53 in total - Republicans and 32 (68%) Democrats support DOMA. The law was signed by US President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Before the 1999 Hawaiian court case was completed and became final, the Hawaiian Constitution was amended in November 1998 to explicitly allow same-sex marriage to be legally prohibited. The Defense of Marriage Act had existed for eight years before the first same-sex marriages in the USA were legally concluded in Massachusetts in 2004 . This was followed by California , Connecticut , Iowa , Vermont and New Hampshire , although this option was revoked by a referendum in California .
Efforts to abolish it
politics
The US President Barack Obama has announced plans to abolish the law. A bill in Congress and two court cases aimed to at least partially abolish the law.
In Gill v. On March 3, 2009 , the gay organization GLAAD filed a lawsuit against the law in a federal court with the Office of Personnel Management . In their opinion, the part that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages violates the principle of equality. In the first instance, the US District Court ruled in July 2010 that the essential parts of the DOMA are unconstitutional. The verdict is not yet legally binding.
Even Martha Coakley , Attorney General (Attorney General) of Massachusetts , filed a lawsuit in 2009 on 8 July. In the Commonwealth v. In the United States Department of Health and Human Services , she believes the law violates the right of states to create their own definition of marriage. Massachusetts was the first US state to legalize same-sex marriage.
On 15 September 2009 the deputy brought Jerrold Nadler of New York (Democrat) the Respect for Marriage Act (Act to respect the marriage) in the Congress. This restores the traditional principle that the federal government will recognize any marriage that is valid in at least one state or territory.
Constitutional law
Various objections have been raised to DOMA's compliance with the United States Constitution. The principles of legal certainty ( enshrined in the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution) and the principle of equality are essential considerations in assessing compliance with the Constitution . Furthermore, with regard to the second paragraph of the law (recognition by other states), the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution could conflict with the law, which requires the mutual recognition of regulations and rights between the states.
In May 2012 the Federal Court of Appeals in Boston declared the DOMA unconstitutional, and in October 2012 the Federal Court of Appeals in New York also declared it unconstitutional.
In March 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Washington negotiated the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act . On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled part of the DOMA unconstitutional. All that had to be decided was whether the law violated the principle of equal treatment at the federal level. The court did not rule on the recognition of same-sex marriage of one state in other states, so this part of the law remains in force. The legal consequence is therefore that the benefits at the federal level are also applied to same-sex marriages in all states. This introduces, for example, the joint assessment of same-sex spouses for income tax and the same tax allowances apply in inheritance tax.
Individual evidence
- ↑ 28 USC § 1738C
- ↑ 1 USC § 7
- ↑ Lamdalegal.org: Baehr v Miike .
- ↑ http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec1.html
- ^ Boston Globe: Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act , July 8, 2009
- ^ Roll- call vote
- ^ Roll- call vote
- ^ Colton C. Campbell and John F. Stack, Jr .: Congress and the Politics of Emerging Rights . Rowman & Littlefield, Lenham 2002, ISBN 0-7425-1646-6 , p. 76.
- ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from April 29, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ 365gay.com: Mass. married gays sue for federal benefits ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ US District Court for the District of Massachusetts: Civil Action No. 09-10309-JLT ( Memento of the original from June 11, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ^ The Boston Globe: Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act
- ^ Advocate.com : The Advocate: Respect for Marriage Act Debuts , September 15, 2009
- ↑ AFP: US court declares law against gay marriage to be unconstitutional . In: Zeit.de , October 18, 2012.
- ↑ faz.net: Negotiating gay marriage, A right to marry?
- ^ Spiegel.de: Trial in Washington: gay marriage before the highest court
- ↑ Spiegel online: Equality: US Supreme Court overturns law against gay marriage , June 26, 2013
- ↑ SCOTUS: UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL. No. 12–307 ( Memento of the original from June 27, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . Argued March 27, 2013 - Decided June 26, 2013
