# Will the end of DADT effect DOMA? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742 "2010-12-19T19:14:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/1 "2010-12-19T19:14:14Z")
Am I right to be optimistic that the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will lead to overturning the Defense of Marriage Act? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/2 "2010-12-19T19:23:03Z")
Why do you think that it might? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/3 "2010-12-19T19:31:35Z")
Do you really think there is a factual answer to that question? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/4 "2010-12-19T19:34:06Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Why do you think that it might? One line of thought could be that both Legislative and Executive brach have taken action on a law they know full well to be in conflict with DOMA wrt benefits for spouses in a SSM. This would indicate the will of the people as refelcted by elected officials has changed/is changing, and the most recent empirical data point is a choice in favor of SSM when given an option, as opposed to the mythical “traditional” marriage definition that never really existed anyway. Not only that, but this happened _after_ the introduction of evidence and trial in the current Federal Prop 8 trial, so should that become bogged down, this could likely provide new grounds for a new suit. Probably similar for Federal suits against DOMA directly already in the pipeline. Probably won’t be necessary though. The benefits issue is going to cause courts to chip away at DOMA rapidly, then form there it will be hard to justify its existence at all. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/5 "2010-12-19T19:34:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you really think there is a factual answer to that question? I asked a question about “Merry v. Happy” that got moved to GQ, so I put here, fully expecting it’d end up here anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/6 "2010-12-19T19:46:50Z")
Factually speaking, the DADT bill states that the elimination of that policy must be done in accordance with DOMA. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/7 "2010-12-19T20:03:25Z")
There’s already a court case (Massachusetts v. US Dept. of Health & Human Services) in progress challenging the DOMA provisions regarding _federal_ recognition of same-sex marriages. DOMA was struck down (in part) in the District Court. Naturally the federal government will appeal all the way to SCOTUS. Now that gays & lesbians can serve openly (or at least they will by Febuary) I don’t think it’ll be long before one tries to get their spouse military benefits like housing or health insurance. The DoD will deny it citing DOMA and the spouse will file a lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/8 "2010-12-19T22:49:17Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > One line of thought could be that both Legislative and Executive brach have taken action on a law they know full well to be in conflict with DOMA wrt benefits for spouses in a SSM. How does it conflict with it? > [@](#): > > This would indicate the will of the people as refelcted by elected officials has changed/is changing, and the most recent empirical data point is a choice in favor of SSM when given an option, as opposed to the mythical “traditional” marriage definition that never really existed anyway. I don’t follow. The court will divine that the will of the people must be to repeal the law, and thus strike it down? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/9 "2010-12-19T23:27:44Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > One line of thought could be that both Legislative and Executive brach have taken action on a law they know full well to be in conflict with DOMA wrt benefits for spouses in a SSM. Except that all the legislation passed yesterday does is discontinue a legal mandate to exclude overt gays from service. It contains NOTHING to require any change in benefits law or rules such as for SSM spouse benefits to be recognized. As mentioned earlier, the law today is the Federal Government does not have to recognize SSM even among its civilian employees, and though under court challenge that is what applies today. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/10 "2010-12-20T01:01:50Z")
I’m with the other posters here. How will a gay couple in the military without spousal benefits be any different than, say, a gay couple working for the post office who currently can’t get spousal benefits? ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/11 "2010-12-20T13:42:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Factually speaking, the DADT bill states that the elimination of that policy must be done in accordance with DOMA. How’s that? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/12 "2010-12-20T14:17:44Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > How’s that? The bill says: > [@](#): > > ``` > (d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act'). > > ``` So, if a service member is married to a same-sex spouse in one of the states that perform such a marriage, the couple does not qualify for benefits on the same basis as a married male and female. I’m not quite sure what happens to other benefits that may be transferable to dependents, such as GI Bill educational benefits may be transferred to one’s dependents. (Such as if a service member earns so much in educational benefits that he does not intend to use for himself, the benefit can be transferred to a spouse or child so they can go to college.) I’m also not clear on what happens for the moving costs for permanent changes of station – if the military tells you to move to Germany, they pay moving costs, but will that include compensation for a same-sex partner? What is really throwing me for a loop is that some spousal/dependent benefits in other Federal jobs have been extended to same-sex partners, such as in the State Department: > **[Technical Difficulties](https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/06/125083.htm)** ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/13 "2010-12-20T16:15:58Z")
I don’t expect DADT’s repeal to have any direct impact upon the enforcement of DOMA, but it is reflective of the fact that U.S. society is far more gay-friendly now than it was even a generation ago. I suspect that DOMA will fall in due time, if not by court order (either by SCOTUS or, more likely, state by state) then by legislative action. The generation that adopted DOMA, all in a lather, will be replaced by one that, by and large, knows and accepts gay people as equals. I suspect that DOMA will, in time, be seen as just as stupid and bizarre as anti-miscegenation laws. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/14 "2010-12-20T16:17:12Z")
Since this is speculation, no factual answer is possible. Moving to GD. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**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:** [December 20, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/15 "2010-12-20T16:44:21Z")
No, although a few years of gays serving openly in the military couldn’t hurt. Presumably the next generation of congresscritters will include at least a dozen current active service members. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/16 "2010-12-20T16:47:40Z")
OK, now that we’re in GD… I think it will help end DOMA indirectly. It’s another step, and a very big one I must say, towards a general acceptance of gays in society which will lead more people to accept the idea of SSM. But DOMA itself will only be a small step in legalizing SSM, as there are still a whole lot of states who have embedded anti-SSM language in their state constitutions. We’ll need the SCOTUS to correct that. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/17 "2010-12-20T17:04:41Z")
Or the voters of those states to amend their constitutions. It could happen. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-end-of-dadt-effect-doma/564742/18 "2010-12-21T01:07:11Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > There’s already a court case (Massachusetts v. US Dept. of Health & Human Services) in progress challenging the DOMA provisions regarding _federal_ recognition of same-sex marriages. DOMA was struck down (in part) in the District Court. Naturally the federal government will appeal all the way to SCOTUS. Two related cases, actually. The other is Gill et al. vs Office of Personnel Management. Both rulings were against DOMA and were decided together. GLAD, who brought Gill, as well the Goodridge case that brought SSM to Massachusetts, has also recently filed Pedersen et al. vs Office of Personnel Management, which is similar to Gill, but with plaintiffs in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire.