Which case held that the Defense of Marriage Act violated federal equal protection by denying recognition of same-sex marriages for federal purposes?

Which case held that the Defense of Marriage Act violated federal equal protection by denying recognition of same-sex marriages for federal purposes?

• A. Obergefell v. Hodges
• B. Romer v. Evans
• C. Baker v. Nelson
• D. United States v. Windsor

Answer: (D)

The issue tested is how the federal government must treat marriages that the states recognize. United States v. Windsor held that DOMA’s definition of marriage as only a union between a man and a woman for federal purposes violated federal equal protection. By denying federal recognition and thus federal benefits to same‑sex couples lawfully married in states that allowed them, the statute created a discriminatory classification based on sexual orientation that had no legitimate basis. The Court emphasized that the federal government should respect state definitions of marriage to avoid unjustly disadvantaging married same‑sex couples, and it struck down the specific DOMA provision as unconstitutional. For context, the other cases involve related but distinct questions: Romer v. Evans struck down a state constitutional amendment aimed at excluding protections for gays; Baker v. Nelson was an early, ultimately dismissed challenge; Obergefell v. Hodges later held that state bans on same‑sex marriage violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses nationwide. But Windsor is the ruling that directly addressed DOMA and federal recognition.

The issue tested is how the federal government must treat marriages that the states recognize. United States v. Windsor held that DOMA’s definition of marriage as only a union between a man and a woman for federal purposes violated federal equal protection. By denying federal recognition and thus federal benefits to same‑sex couples lawfully married in states that allowed them, the statute created a discriminatory classification based on sexual orientation that had no legitimate basis. The Court emphasized that the federal government should respect state definitions of marriage to avoid unjustly disadvantaging married same‑sex couples, and it struck down the specific DOMA provision as unconstitutional.

For context, the other cases involve related but distinct questions: Romer v. Evans struck down a state constitutional amendment aimed at excluding protections for gays; Baker v. Nelson was an early, ultimately dismissed challenge; Obergefell v. Hodges later held that state bans on same‑sex marriage violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses nationwide. But Windsor is the ruling that directly addressed DOMA and federal recognition.