# Doper Lawyers, Help Me Understand the DOMA Decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 27, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035 "2013-06-27T14:43:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LawMonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@LawMonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LawMonkey)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035/21 "2013-06-28T20:29:33Z")
Curious about something: as **TheSeaOtter** mentioned, I’ve generally read that treatment of a gay-married couple will depend on the specific state you’re dealing with. Couldn’t Obama, as head of the executive branch and ultimately all of those agencies, direct the agencies to adopt a uniform standard? In a certain Machiavellian way, I’d hope he wouldn’t; pressure from industries that want to recruit gay employees will be more effective if moving to a state that doesn’t recognize SSM means losing federal benefits. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035/22 "2013-06-28T20:50:52Z")
> [@LawMonkey](#): > > Curious about something: as **TheSeaOtter** mentioned, I’ve generally read that treatment of a gay-married couple will depend on the specific state you’re dealing with. Couldn’t Obama, as head of the executive branch and ultimately all of those agencies, direct the agencies to adopt a uniform standard? In a certain Machiavellian way, I’d hope he wouldn’t; pressure from industries that want to recruit gay employees will be more effective if moving to a state that doesn’t recognize SSM means losing federal benefits. Congress appropriates benefits and cut offs, e.g. South Dakota v. Dole any Executive Order is not controlling. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035/23 "2013-06-28T20:56:07Z")
> [@LawMonkey](#): > > Curious about something: as **TheSeaOtter** mentioned, I’ve generally read that treatment of a gay-married couple will depend on the specific state you’re dealing with. Couldn’t Obama, as head of the executive branch and ultimately all of those agencies, direct the agencies to adopt a uniform standard? In a certain Machiavellian way, I’d hope he wouldn’t; pressure from industries that want to recruit gay employees will be more effective if moving to a state that doesn’t recognize SSM means losing federal benefits. The problem is that the DOMA decision rested partly on the rationale that the federal government cannot impose upon the citizens of a state a definition of marriage that differs from that state’s definition. In the recent case, the point was that in a state that recognizes SSM, the feds cannot use a narrower defintion of marriage that does not. This appears to imply that in a state that does not recognize SSM, the feds cannot use a definition of marriage that does. I agree with **md2000** that this will be hashed out in future cases. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035/24 "2013-06-28T21:19:26Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The question, though, is which state? One or the other is going to be negated. > > 1. No; there’s a widespread misconception that FFC applies to marriages, but it never has. FFC basically applies to judgments from legal cases. In the past, states have declined to recognize each other’s marriages in cases of differences as to age or consanguinity. > [@](#): > > Article 4. > > Section 1 > Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, > and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general > Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be > proved, and the Effect thereof. FFC applies to all public acts and records, including marriage certificates. A state, however, need not recognize a valid marriage performed in another state if it would be against the public policy of that state and the state, therefore, would have a compelling reason not to recognize the marriage. The Const. states that Congress shall prescribe the manner, etc. And SCOTUS’ interpretation of DOMA gives validity to that principle by noting that in the states where such marriages are valid, etc. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035/25 "2013-06-29T00:42:37Z")
I have seen nothing that even considers this an issue. They just say that the federal government has to recognize the marriage and extend the legal benefits to them. I went all through SCOTUSblog, and they don’t say anything about this potential problem. The closest they get is specifying that it’s perfectly legal for a state to define marriage “traditionally.” It may just be that this case doesn’t touch on that issue, leaving this as an open question. So I have a quick question of fact–are other states required to recognize a marriage by people who would be too young to marry in their state? And, if not, is the federal government required to recognize it? I think those would serve as precedent. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035/26 "2013-06-29T01:58:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Windsor actually _got_ married in Ontario, and the Constitution has nothing to say about the authority of foreign governments to regulate marriage. > **[International matrimonial law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_matrimonial_law)** > > International matrimonial law is an area of private international law (or conflict of laws in the United States). The area specifically deals with relations between spouses and former spouses on issues of marriage, divorce and child custody. In the last 50 years, the States Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law have attempted to harmonize domestic matrimonial laws and judicial rulings across international borders in these areas. > The Hague Convention that harmonizes differe... SSM throws a wrench into I guess but in general a monogamous marriage in one country is recognized by another, or every couple would have to get remarried in every country they live in. Immigration and naturalization recognizes foreign marriages in applying for permanent residency etc. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035/27 "2013-06-29T21:13:41Z")
Right, but that’s a voluntary reciprocity thing, not a constitutional imperative. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doper-lawyers-help-me-understand-the-doma-decision/662035.md?page=1)