Arguments Against DOMA
Defense of Marriage Act
The purpose of this paper is to provide a history and overview of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Next, I will analyze the impact that this policy has had on LGBTQ individuals. Finally, this paper will review support and opposition to the bill, which will conclude with personal views regarding this issue.
History and Overview
In 1993, Hawaii state government ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage violated equal protections defined by the Hawaii Constitution (Pelts, 2014). In response, Rob Barr introduced DOMA to nationally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman on May 7, 1996. In September 1996, DOMA became federally recognized by President Bill Clinton after undergoing voting from the House and Senate. Under DOMA, marriage is defined as a “union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and spouse of the opposite sex” (Pelts, 2014, p.238). In addition to the federal definition of marriage, DOMA also allows individual states to invalidate same-sex marriages performed in other states (Koppelman, 1997). In 2011, …show more content…
President Barack Obama discontinued federal funding for DOMA. The U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Windsor challenged DOMA in 2013, which led to the policy’s repeal. With DOMA’s repeal, marriage was no longer defined as heterosexual. Thus, this policy is no longer in effect. In addition, same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states including several Indian tribes.
DOMA itself is a very short and concise act. It is comprised of three sections: a short title, powers reserved to the states, and the definition of marriage. The first section names the bill the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The second section puts forth that no state, territory or area of the United States will be mandated to recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships from other states, territories, or areas in the U.S (Civic Impulse, 2017). Finally, the definition of marriage section, determines that federal recognition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ are only for heterosexual relationships (Civic Impulse, 2017).
Impact on LGBTQ Individuals/Families When DOMA was enacted, it’s impact on LGBTQ individuals and families was far-reaching. It prevented same-sex spouses from benefitting from several federal programs including health care and social security benefits (Koppelman, 1997). Specifically, same-sex spouses were denied medical benefits, social security benefits, and federal protections such as those afforded to heterosexual couples. This puts significant financial strain on same-sex couples and families who would be treated as individuals in the eyes of the federal government (Koppelman, 1997). Thus, same-sex couples were denied the ability to file federal joint taxes.
Additionally, DOMA led to increased stigma towards same-sex couples. This stigma negatively impacted mental health among LGBTQ individuals. A study conducted by Mathy and Lehmann (2004) suggested that DOMA posed significant risk for lesbians and bisexual women in the US. They found that DOMA has a strong correlation to stress-related disorders, including depression and suicidality (Matthy & Lehmann, 2004). Not only does marital status impact the couple, it also impacts the children through how they are viewed by their peers, society, and their ability to access government benefits (Pelts, 2014). This impact continues to impact children even to the point of them going to college since federal financial aid requires tax information for both parents (Pelts, 2014).
Arguments
Much favor for DOMA comes from religious institutions and organizations who argue that marriage is deeply embedded in religious conventions (Severino, 2007). Many religious institutions define marriage as a heterosexual union and DOMA supports this widely-held religious platform. Additionally, arguments have been made suggesting that opposite-sex marriages allow for procreation and ensure the well-being of children, whereas same-sex marriages do not afford these (Pelts, 2014). DOMA also is supported by those who believe that same-sex relationships are similar to broken families that lead to increased youth crime, increase in children in poverty, and increased mental health issues which contribute to a significant burden on society (Pelts, 2014). In addition, DOMA supporters suggest that same-sex marriage weakens traditional marriage (Pelts, 2014).
Just as arguments supporting DOMA are multifaceted, the arguments in opposition are also diverse. As was previously mentioned, DOMA had a significantly negative impact on the mental health of same-sex couples and families (Pelts, 2014). Lesbian and bisexual women were at increased risk for depression and suicidality under DOMA (Mathy & Lehman, 2004). Given the negative impact on mental health, opposition also included social work and mental health agencies. Also, these agencies were in opposition due to the inclusion of cultural competency, respect, and diversity, as well as a commitment to serving the oppressed and marginalized groups (Pelts, 2014). Additionally, children in same-sex families experienced negative views by peers and society as well as limited access to government benefits such as education (Pelts, 2014). DOMA had a devastatingly negative impact on finances for same-sex couples given that same-sex spouses were denied federal benefits which include social security benefits, tax reductions, and health care. Additionally, opposition to DOMA included employers who were forced to treat groups of employees differently when it came to benefits and coverage (Pelts, 2014).
Primarily Against DOMA
Given arguments for and against DOMA, there is research to support both sides of the argument.
However, I personally lean towards opposition against DOMA. Though I can understand the ties that marriage has to religious institutions, I agree with President Barack Obama’s conception that there can be both religious and civil version of marriage (Pelts, 2014), which means that marriage does not have to have religious affiliation. Additionally, as a future mental health professional, it is my responsibility and goal to take care of the wellbeing of all my clients. Given that there is a strong relationship between recognition of same-sex marriage and public health, it makes sense that I would favor the side which would allow for decreases in stress responses. Additionally, opposition to DOMA allows for inclusion of same-sex couples for federal benefits such as social security, tax breaks, and health
care.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a history and overview of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Next, I will analyze the impact that this policy has had on LGBTQ individuals. Finally, this paper will review support and opposition to the bill, which will conclude with personal views regarding this issue.
History and Overview
In 1993, Hawaii state government ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage violated equal protections defined by the Hawaii Constitution (Pelts, 2014). In response, Rob Barr introduced DOMA to nationally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman on May 7, 1996. In September 1996, DOMA became federally recognized by President Bill Clinton after undergoing voting from the House and Senate. Under DOMA, marriage is defined as a “union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and spouse of the opposite sex” (Pelts, 2014, p.238). In addition to the federal definition of marriage, DOMA also allows individual states to invalidate same-sex marriages performed in other states (Koppelman, 1997). In 2011, …show more content…
President Barack Obama discontinued federal funding for DOMA. The U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Windsor challenged DOMA in 2013, which led to the policy’s repeal. With DOMA’s repeal, marriage was no longer defined as heterosexual. Thus, this policy is no longer in effect. In addition, same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states including several Indian tribes.
DOMA itself is a very short and concise act. It is comprised of three sections: a short title, powers reserved to the states, and the definition of marriage. The first section names the bill the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The second section puts forth that no state, territory or area of the United States will be mandated to recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships from other states, territories, or areas in the U.S (Civic Impulse, 2017). Finally, the definition of marriage section, determines that federal recognition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ are only for heterosexual relationships (Civic Impulse, 2017).
Impact on LGBTQ Individuals/Families When DOMA was enacted, it’s impact on LGBTQ individuals and families was far-reaching. It prevented same-sex spouses from benefitting from several federal programs including health care and social security benefits (Koppelman, 1997). Specifically, same-sex spouses were denied medical benefits, social security benefits, and federal protections such as those afforded to heterosexual couples. This puts significant financial strain on same-sex couples and families who would be treated as individuals in the eyes of the federal government (Koppelman, 1997). Thus, same-sex couples were denied the ability to file federal joint taxes.
Additionally, DOMA led to increased stigma towards same-sex couples. This stigma negatively impacted mental health among LGBTQ individuals. A study conducted by Mathy and Lehmann (2004) suggested that DOMA posed significant risk for lesbians and bisexual women in the US. They found that DOMA has a strong correlation to stress-related disorders, including depression and suicidality (Matthy & Lehmann, 2004). Not only does marital status impact the couple, it also impacts the children through how they are viewed by their peers, society, and their ability to access government benefits (Pelts, 2014). This impact continues to impact children even to the point of them going to college since federal financial aid requires tax information for both parents (Pelts, 2014).
Arguments
Much favor for DOMA comes from religious institutions and organizations who argue that marriage is deeply embedded in religious conventions (Severino, 2007). Many religious institutions define marriage as a heterosexual union and DOMA supports this widely-held religious platform. Additionally, arguments have been made suggesting that opposite-sex marriages allow for procreation and ensure the well-being of children, whereas same-sex marriages do not afford these (Pelts, 2014). DOMA also is supported by those who believe that same-sex relationships are similar to broken families that lead to increased youth crime, increase in children in poverty, and increased mental health issues which contribute to a significant burden on society (Pelts, 2014). In addition, DOMA supporters suggest that same-sex marriage weakens traditional marriage (Pelts, 2014).
Just as arguments supporting DOMA are multifaceted, the arguments in opposition are also diverse. As was previously mentioned, DOMA had a significantly negative impact on the mental health of same-sex couples and families (Pelts, 2014). Lesbian and bisexual women were at increased risk for depression and suicidality under DOMA (Mathy & Lehman, 2004). Given the negative impact on mental health, opposition also included social work and mental health agencies. Also, these agencies were in opposition due to the inclusion of cultural competency, respect, and diversity, as well as a commitment to serving the oppressed and marginalized groups (Pelts, 2014). Additionally, children in same-sex families experienced negative views by peers and society as well as limited access to government benefits such as education (Pelts, 2014). DOMA had a devastatingly negative impact on finances for same-sex couples given that same-sex spouses were denied federal benefits which include social security benefits, tax reductions, and health care. Additionally, opposition to DOMA included employers who were forced to treat groups of employees differently when it came to benefits and coverage (Pelts, 2014).
Primarily Against DOMA
Given arguments for and against DOMA, there is research to support both sides of the argument.
However, I personally lean towards opposition against DOMA. Though I can understand the ties that marriage has to religious institutions, I agree with President Barack Obama’s conception that there can be both religious and civil version of marriage (Pelts, 2014), which means that marriage does not have to have religious affiliation. Additionally, as a future mental health professional, it is my responsibility and goal to take care of the wellbeing of all my clients. Given that there is a strong relationship between recognition of same-sex marriage and public health, it makes sense that I would favor the side which would allow for decreases in stress responses. Additionally, opposition to DOMA allows for inclusion of same-sex couples for federal benefits such as social security, tax breaks, and health
care.