Why are persons who through no true fault of their own victimized through stigmatization or societal exclusion because of the lives they have chosen to live? When the foundational framing documents of the United States were written—the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution specifically—particular attention was paid to “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (U.S. Const. pmbl.). Today, we see examples of people who are not able to pursue their happiness to the fullest extent accorded by the Founding Fathers.

An example of societal restriction on individual freedom is the nontraditional marriage. A “traditional” marriage is typically defined as the joining in matrimony (a civil ceremony following classical norms of a culture) of two people of the opposite gender. While there may be variations in this general definition depending on the cultural and social context, certain rights and obligations between the partners are established and recognized. Marriage is often viewed as a contract and may further be acknowledged by a state, organization, religious body, tribal group, local community, or peers. But what happens if the consenting pair seeking recognized marriage are of the same gender?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted by the 104th Congress in 1996 and signed into law in an attempt to clearly define and defend the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Prior to 1996, state-level same-gender marriages were recognized, and these unions were at the local level considered to be legal and acceptable (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.). Upon DOMA’s ratification, several negative implications of the act became apparent. Many benefits and certain legal recognitions that were afforded to one-man and one-woman unions were specifically denied to individuals joined in same-gender marriages.

One of the major provisions of this law was that a nonbiological parent could not have a legal relationship with a child of the biological parent in a same-sex couple. Moreover, same-sex couples could not take medical leave to care for their partners or nonbiological children. They also could not adopt children, and during divorce proceedings, they could not petition the court for custody, visitation rights, or child support (Legal Information Institute, 2022, para. 5). The result of this federal legislation was that people in same-gender marriages were marginalized, disenfranchised and, in the case of lost benefits of marriage, victimized on several levels.

The DOMA definition of marriage and the various states’ abilities to not recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states were struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor) and 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges). While these court outcomes were pivotal to restoring same-gender marriage status, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022 has created the possibility for the Court to reexamine its ruling in Obergefell (2015) in the future.

The original Violence Against Women Act, Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), called attention to the societal issues of domestic violence, sexual abuse, dating violence, assault, and stalking with sexual motivation. The original act was reauthorized in 2000, 2006, and in 2013, with Congress and certain interest groups seeking to provide various improvements and services to victims. The 2013 reauthorization supporters, however, pushed back against the notion that women are in need of paternalistic assistance that could be offered by the states. The reauthorization supporters pointed out that the foundational laws are not gender-exclusive and, as such, are able to address the needs of male victims as well as women’s. It was also pointed out that women are in fact differentially affected by violence, as are the communities in which they reside.

Attributions

1. Figure 4.13: DSC_0272 by Jordan Uhl is released under CC BY 2.0