Highlighted states, which include Washington, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Maine all perform same sex marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act has recently been deemed unconstitutional in several court cases since the Obama Administration instructed the Department of Justice to cease DOMA court defending in 2011.
DOMA, which was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, is a federal law that restricts federal marriage benefits to heterosexual couples. Under the law, only heterosexual marriages are recognized across state lines as well.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear one case, Windsor v. United States, on March 27. Four other cases where DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by judges are under potential U.S. Supreme Court review.
“The Defense of Marriage Act limits marriage in a way that we have never seen before on a federal level. Instead of expanding, DOMA limits marriage and it also takes away the ability of states to define marriage how they want and have the constitution come into play and say that the definition will be recognized by other states,” Cathy Connolly Gender and Women Studies professor and state legislator, said.
Connolly also said marriage has been deemed a fundamental right and that states have the obligation to define it for their citizens.
Stephen M. Feldman, Jerry W. Housel/Carl F. Arnold Distinguished Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, thinks DOMA could be deemed as unconstitutional.
“I think there is a chance that the Supreme Court will hold that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection,” Feldman said. “The two LGBT cases, however, are complex. The justices might go in any of several directions.”
According to Feldman, it is possible the four liberal justices will vote that DOMA violates equal protection. However, Feldman predicts that Justice Anthony Kennedy, as a moderate conservative, may prefer to rest the decision on a federalism issue.
The Supreme Court will not be preventing people from marrying. DOMA is intended to block legal recognition of certain marriages. The court will either uphold the constitutionality of the statute or invalidate it as unconstitutional, Feldman says.
Feldman also points out that if a statute is harmonious with certain religious views is passed, that does not render the statute unconstitutional.
“There are doctrines that the court uses to determine if a governmental action violates the separation of church and state,” he said. “For instance, the Court might focus on whether the purpose of the governmental action is religious or secular. In this instance, I would be surprised if the court saw any problem in this regard.”
Feldman believes the most likely outcome will be a coalition of Kennedy plus the four liberals invalidating DOMA.
“The liberal justices will concur, agreeing with Kennedy, but will also write a separate opinion reasoning that DOMA violates equal protection as well (their preferred ground for the decision),” Feldman said. “This coalition of Kennedy with the four liberals is most likely.”
Connolly thinks DOMA’s flaw is that it says federal agencies will not recognize legitimate marriages.
She believes the Proposition 8 case in California can go as far as asking if state mini-DOMAs, which define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, are constitutional.
“This one is more up in the air. Of course I’d like to see the Supreme Court strike down state mini-DOMAs, but I am not sure that the Supreme Court will make that decision,” she said.
Though these views come from a more professional side of DOMA, students have also voiced their opinions on the issue from more personal experiences.
Art history student Adam Nimick feels that while DOMA may still be in effect, people will continue to fight for the issue.
“In my opinion it’s just a form of discrimination and keeping someone else down,” Nimick said. “Just like Prop 8, they haven’t stopped fighting it. I’m pretty sure it won’t last.”
Cole Lemaster, a graphics design major at UW, says everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but those opinions should not be forced upon others.
“Opinions are opinions for a reason. You do not have to force your personal views, religion, or anything else for that matter upon anyone else,” Lemaster said. “That is what makes America great.”
Lemaster also thinks now is a time for change and ending the discrimination some face daily.
“We as a culture in 2013 have the power to make a difference, to bring awareness to these types of issues, discrimination, and narrow minded behaviors,” Lemaster said. “At the end of the day, we are all in this fight together. Don’t take someone else’s rights away unless you would like to have them taken away yourself. “
The Supreme Court is not expected to make a decision on DOMA until June. Until then, those from both sides of the issue will have to wait and see what the outcome of DOMA will be.
