IWS Documented News INTERNATIONAL

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

 

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

 

Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues

Alison M. Smith, Legislative Attorney

May 9, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31994.pdf

[full-text, 35 pages]

 

Summary

The recognition of same-sex marriages generates debate on both the federal and state levels.

Either legislatively or judicially, same-sex marriage is legal in seven states. Other states allow

civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant all or part of state-level rights, benefits, and/or

responsibilities of marriage. Some states have statutes or constitutional amendments limiting

marriage to one man and one woman. These variations raise questions about the validity of such

unions outside the contracted jurisdiction and have bearing on the distribution of federal benefits.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex

marriages and allows individual states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other

states. Section 3 of DOMA requires that marriage, for purposes of federal benefit programs, be

defined as the union of one man and one woman. Lower courts are starting to address DOMA’s

constitutionality. On July 8, 2010, a U.S. district court in Massachusetts found Section 3 of

DOMA unconstitutional in two companion cases brought by same-sex couples married in

Massachusetts. In one case, the court found that DOMA exceeded Congress’s power under the

Spending Clause and violated the Tenth Amendment. In the other, the court held that Congress’s

goal of preserving the status quo did not bear a rational relationship to DOMA, and thus violated

the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. While the government filed a notice of appeal in

these cases, it is unclear whether the cases will continue. In February 2011, the U.S. Attorney

General submitted a letter to congressional leadership stating that the government will not defend

DOMA’s constitutionality under certain conditions. The Assistant Attorney General subsequently

submitted a letter to the First Circuit stating that the government will cease its defense of Section

3 of DOMA. However, the United States will remain a party to the cases presumably to “provide

Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation.”

 

Questions regarding same-sex marriages figure prominently in California. After the state supreme

court’s decision finding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state

constitution, voters approved a constitutional amendment (“Proposition 8”) limiting the validity

and recognition of “marriages” to heterosexual couples. Subsequent court challenges ensued. On

February 7, 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision

finding that Proposition 8 violates both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment, inasmuch as voters took away a right from a minority group without

justification when they approved Proposition 8. In a matter of first impression, the lower court

found that Proposition 8 (1) deprived same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry under

the Due Process Clause and (2) excluded such couples from state-sponsored marriage while

allowing heterosexual couples access in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. While the

appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, it did so on much narrower grounds based on

historical facts specific to California. As such, it appears that this decision will have little, if any,

impact on other jurisdictions. However, the case will likely be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit

or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear whether the Court would accept the case for

review on the merits, as it pertains to an interpretation of a state constitutional amendment.

 

This report discusses DOMA and legal challenges to it. It reviews legal principles applied to

determine the validity of a marriage contracted in another state and surveys the various

approaches employed by states to enable or to prevent same-sex marriage. The report also

examines House and Senate resolutions introduced in previous Congresses proposing a

constitutional amendment and limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear or determine any

question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA.

 

 

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).................................................................................................. 3

Constitutional Challenges to DOMA in Federal Courts .................................................................. 4

Full Faith and Credit Clause...................................................................................................... 5

Equal Protection ........................................................................................................................ 5

Substantive Due Process (Right to Privacy).............................................................................. 7

Tenth Amendment and Spending Power.................................................................................... 7

U.S. Department of Justice Statement and Letter on Litigation Involving the

Constitutionality of DOMA.................................................................................................... 9

Interstate Recognition of Marriage ................................................................................................ 10

Same-Sex Marriage Activity in the States ..................................................................................... 11

State Litigation ........................................................................................................................ 11

Massachusetts.................................................................................................................... 11

“Marriage” Versus Domestic Partnership or Civil Union: Standards of Review.............. 13

California........................................................................................................................... 13

New Jersey ........................................................................................................................ 17

Arizona.............................................................................................................................. 19

State “Civil Union” Laws........................................................................................................ 20

Congressional Activity................................................................................................................... 21

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 22

State Constitutional Amendments Limiting Marriage to a Man and a Woman ............................. 23

Alabama................................................................................................................................... 23

Arkansas .................................................................................................................................. 24

Arizona .................................................................................................................................... 24

California................................................................................................................................. 24

Colorado .................................................................................................................................. 24

Florida ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Georgia .................................................................................................................................... 25

Idaho........................................................................................................................................ 25

Kansas ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Kentucky.................................................................................................................................. 25

Louisiana ................................................................................................................................. 26

Michigan.................................................................................................................................. 26

Mississippi............................................................................................................................... 26

Missouri................................................................................................................................... 26

Montana................................................................................................................................... 26

North Carolina......................................................................................................................... 26

North Dakota ........................................................................................................................... 27

Ohio......................................................................................................................................... 27

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................................ 27

Oregon ..................................................................................................................................... 27

South Carolina......................................................................................................................... 27

South Dakota ........................................................................................................................... 27

Tennessee................................................................................................................................. 28

Texas........................................................................................................................................ 28

Utah ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Virginia .................................................................................................................................... 28

Wisconsin ................................................................................................................................ 28

 

Tables

Table 1. State Statutes Defining “Marriage”.................................................................................. 29

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.