You might be excused for thinking it is a snack of Greek origin, involving grape leaves. No, this is the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA is a federal law that defines marriage, with two key components. First, Section 2 allows states that do not themselves recognize marriages between same sex couples to refuse to recognize legal same sex marriages performed in other states that do, and second, Section 3 defines marriage for purposes of federal law as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” 

Additional problems have cropped up in the federal system regarding the federal definition of the term “marriage.” One example is in California, where there is an on-going case of an attorney who is an employee of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal employer. She has sued to have her wife (they were legally married in California before the passage of Prop. 8) become eligible for the health care benefits that she and their son currently have. Her employer, the Court, has granted her the benefits, but is being challenged by the Department of Justice, which is attempting to deny the benefits under the DOMA.

In Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same sex marriage, the first challenge to the constitutionality of DOMA has arisen. According to the Boston Globe, the suit filed by Mass Attorney General Martha Coakley in July 2009 alleges the DOMA infringes on the state’s traditional rights to regulate marriage. Last week, AG Coakley has asked the court for a summary judgment on her case, which would resolve the matter without trial. Some experts believe it is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision on the constitutionality of the DOMA. Any appeals to the Massachusetts suit may give them that opportunity.

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules