The Demise of DOMA: Implications for Same-Sex Marriage

Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996, marriage was restricted to heterosexual unions, effectively denying same-sex couples the legal benefits enjoyed by their opposite-sex counterparts. This piece of legislation was ruled unconstitutional through the Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor in 2013. The challenge to DOMA arose in 2010 when Edith Windsor sought to claim a spousal federal estate tax benefit that had been denied when her wife, Thea Spyer, passed away. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices ruled that DOMA infringed upon important Fifth Amendment liberties, imposing a disadvantage based upon sexual orientation. DOMA was overturned, allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages that are considered valid under state law. In this paper, I’ll argue that the ruling against DOMA was an essential step towards equality for same-sex couples. The Windsor decision allows the federal government to extend employee benefits to same-sex spouses, allows for the free transfer of assets and retirement benefits, and provides for the possibility of divorce.

The DOMA ruling allows same-sex spouses to receive medical benefits and other forms of insurance offered by their spouses’ employers. Though some same-sex spouses were covered by group plans prior to Winsdor, these individuals were labeled as dependents and thus subject to taxation that heterosexual spouses were able to avoid (Moran and Leon 95). Since the ruling, same-sex spouses have been able to qualify for medical coverage when spousal plans are offered. Same-sex spouses also now qualify for tax-free spousal life and accident insurance when offered by employers (96), as well as disability benefits offered to spouses through the federal government. For example, when one same-sex spouse suffers a serious health condition, the other spouse now qualifies under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a 12 week unpaid leave (98). Each of these changes provide same-sex spouses with liberties previously denied under DOMA.

The DOMA ruling allows same-sex spouses the freedom to transfer assets and retirement benefits (Hertz 247). Not all employee benefit plans offer coverage to spouses, but those that do must now cover same-sex spouses. When a retirement plan is in place, the contents of a 401(k) will be automatically distributed to a same-sex spouse at the time of their partner’s death. Not all 401(k) plans offer pre-retirement death benefits or survivor annuities, but those that do must accommodate the updated definition of a “spouse” (Moran and Leon 92). Under this system, spouses must consent to the designation of alternative beneficiaries. Under DOMA, same-sex spouses could not reference each other’s hardships when applying for such a withdrawal (94). The reversal of DOMA now allows same-sex spouses to apply for a “hardship withdrawal” from a 401(k) if the hardship affects their spouse. The ability to transfer assets and retirement benefits is a major step towards equality for same-sex spouses.

The reversal of DOMA will ease the process of divorce for same-sex couples. Prior to DOMA’s reversal, many same-sex spouses were unable to divorce under state laws, though they were considered unmarried by the federal government (Hertz 246). Most states that offered domestic partnerships or civil union arrangements also offered divorces to same-sex couples married out of state. In states without these provisions, couples who were married in a state that allows same-sex marriage, but live a state that does not, found themselves ineligible for divorce in their state of residence. Local state courts often refused to issue divorces, claiming that to do so would involve recognizing the validity of the marriage in the first place. Because divorce proceedings required in-state residency, same-sex spouses frequently found themselves ineligible for divorce. The Windsor decision made it possible for same-sex spouses to receive a divorce in the state in which they were married, regardless of their current residency. In the event of divorce, DOMA’s reversal also allows retirement benefits to be transferred from one spouses’ account to another, and allows former spouses of federal government employees to retain the benefits accumulated during a marriage (247). Given each of these changes, same-sex divorces are now much more similar to opposite-sex divorces than they were prior to DOMA’s reversal. The Windsor decision represents a major step towards equality for same sex spouses, both in marriage and in divorce.

In this paper, I’ve argued that the ruling against DOMA was an essential step towards equality for same-sex spouses. The Windsor decision allowed the federal government to extend employee benefits to same-sex spouses, allowed for the free transfer of assets and retirement benefits, and provided for the possibility of divorce. Medical benefits, as well as other types of insurance offered through employers, may now cover same-sex spouses free of taxation. Assets and retirement benefits may be transferred in a straightforward fashion, avoiding the taxation and legal hassles that same-sex spouses previously endured. In divorce, same-sex couples are no longer subject to residency requirements that prevent their legal separation. Following divorce, same-sex couples are now eligible for the same services offered to opposite-sex spouses, including the ability to retain retirement benefits and the tax-free transfer of retirement benefits. Each of these services represents a major step towards equality for same-sex spouses. Though same-sex spouses still face other types of legal hurdles, the ruling against DOMA was an important step in the right direction.

Works Cited

Hertz, Frederick. “Navigating Same-Sex Dissolutions: Navigating the Legal Landscape.” American Journal of Family Law 26.4 (2014): 246-251.

Moran, Anne E. and Misty A. Leon. “Implementing New Rules for Same-Sex Spouses after the Supreme Court Decision.” Employee Relations Law Journal 39.4 (2014): 88-100.