DOMA refers to the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically created a situation in which same-sex marriages were not recognized for any federal purpose. It all came about as a result of a 1993 ruling by the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which said that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. This raised concern among opponents of same-sex marriage that same-sex marriage might become legal in Hawaii and that other states would be compelled to recognize those marriages under the United States Constitution.
That’s why they introduced Section 2 of DOMA. DOMA was introduced by Republicans in 1996, and passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996. DOMA defines “spouse” and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage. Same-sex marriages were not recognized for all federal purposes, impacting:
- insurance benefits (including employer-sponsored health benefits)
- taxes
- social security benefits
- retirement benefits
- immigration
- employment benefits
- federal employment laws such as FMLA, HIPAA, COBRA, and ERISA
“DOMA has two controversial sections. It has Section 2, which basically states that any state can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states,” John Gannon told us in a recent BLR webinar, and “Section 3 . . . [which] basically barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as spouses for purposes of federal laws, or from receiving federal marriage benefits.”
This is significant because “there are actually over 1300 federal statutes that either confer separate or unique benefits on married parties, or impose separate or unique obligations on married individuals.” Gannon explained. It was Section 3 that was challenged in U.S. v. Windsor.
Same Sex Marriage: How Does U.S. v. Windsor Affect Employers?
Here’s the context of the U.S. v. Windsor case:
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Because their marriage was valid under New York law, Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. The Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages and as such Winsor would be required to pay $363,053 in estate taxes.
Windsor filed a lawsuit in 2010 against the federal government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement from the Obama administration that agreed with the plaintiff’s position that DOMA violated the U.S. Constitution and said he would no longer defend the law in court.
The District Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012. Further appeal took the case to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates Fifth Amendment to US Constitution. The Court said that DOMA creates a “stigma” on citizens and creates a “second tier marriage” which is unfair to spouses and children, raises healthcare costs, and has negative effect on children.
“This is really the most politically-charged case that the Supreme Court took on in its most recent term.” Gannon noted. Since the Supreme Court concluded that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, the ruling will have an impact on taxes, family and medical leave obligations, COBRA notices, and other employee benefits.
For more information on how same-sex marriage rulings affect employers, order the webinar recording of “Supreme Court Roundup: The Latest Labor and Employment Law Rulings Explained.” To register for a future webinar, visit http://store.blr.com/events/webinars.
John S. Gannon is an associate with Skoler, Abbot & Presser, P.C. and practices in the firm’s Springfield, Massachusetts, office. He defends employers against discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination, and related claims.