The Congressional Evolution on DOMA
There is an intriguing story behind the recent Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) headlines, one that mirrors trends in public opinion surveys, but involves a group you might not expect — members of Congress who voted for the law in 1996, but now favor its repeal.
Back in July, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a landmark hearing on DOMA, exploring how it impacts married gay and lesbian couples and their families across the country. The hearing got me thinking about the now infamous '96 congressional vote in favor of DOMA. Defenders of the law, exemplified by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) at the July hearing, often like to tout the original congressional vote totals in support of DOMA ( and ) as the end of the story. In essence, they say, why change a law that garnered so many bipartisan votes when it was passed?
Obviously, this line of thinking ignores the undeniable (even for DOMA supporters) reality that, with respect to relationship recognition for gay and lesbian couples, 1996 is ancient history. When DOMA became law almost 15 years ago, gay and lesbian couples could not legally marry in any state in the country. Today, the number stands at six as well as the District of Columbia. As things stand today, 35 million Americans live in states that grant gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.
However, we need not look only to state-level developments or changes in public opinion surveys (though they have been significant) to examine the changed landscape for DOMA in 2011. The changes in attitudes among certain key members of Congress signal just how much has changed, and why the drumbeat of references among DOMA supporters to the '96 congressional votes should be greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism.
At the start of the August recess, nine current members of the U.S. Senate who voted for DOMA in '96 — either as members of the Senate or as then-members of the House of Representatives — are cosponsors of the , legislation that would repeal DOMA in its entirety. These senators are:
Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Included among this group are the current Assistant Senate Majority Leader (Sen. Durbin), Chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (Sen. Schumer) and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Sen. Leahy). In addition, — the committee with jurisdiction over the Respect for Marriage Act — is now a cosponsor of the DOMA repeal legislation. This is particularly noteworthy because the current 112th Congress is the very first in which a DOMA repeal bill has been introduced in the Senate. It currently has of the Senate. That's no small feat, and is especially impressive considering the legislation was only just introduced in March.
These senators join — and President Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, in support of its repeal. In addition, among the 14 lonely senators who voted against DOMA in '96, six remain in the Senate and each and every one is a Respect for Marriage cosponsor, including the legislation's chief Senate sponsor — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Comparing past votes and current support (or lack thereof), the trends are unmistakable. Senators who opposed DOMA in 1996 — as either senators or then-representatives — continue to do so strongly. However, numerous Democrats who supported DOMA in the past have since had a change of heart and now favor of its repeal. Of the remaining 12 current Democratic cosponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act who were not present for the 1996 congressional vote, 11 are currently in their first term, meaning they were elected no earlier than 2006 (and began their service in 2007).
According to an ACLU analysis, among all Democratic senators elected since 2006 (21 in total, including those who previously served in the House), 13 (or 62 percent) are current cosponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act. There is an unmistakable trend among recently elected Democrats who are strongly in support of DOMA repeal and the Respect for Marriage Act.
On this issue, senators are rapidly moving in one direction — in support of repeal through passage of the Respect for Marriage Act. The increasing congressional support for DOMA repeal — there are also over 120 cosponsors on the Respect for Marriage Act in the House as well — is indicative of the massive evolution in public opinion on this issue. It also speaks to the fact that there are currently tens of thousands of legally married Americans who are being denied each of the more than 1,100 federal benefits and protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples, including Social Security survivor benefits and Family and Medical Leave Act coverage.
As more and more Americans, including members of Congress, come to understand this senseless discriminatory reality, support for the law's repeal will continue to grow. DOMA will, without question, eventually cease to exist. The real question is how much longer it will needlessly continue to harm thousands of American families.
Learn more about LGBT rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.