Defense of Marriage

"We feel it's critical for the court to understand the burdens that this law imposes on both employees and employers. DOMA is not just a piece of social legislation, but it also has very practical costs for the business community and the people they employ."
James Klein, president, American Benefits Council, Washington

It's the bottom line that does it every time. The cost of what in this instance is seen as a social injustice. A 1996-era federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act, whereby health plans, retirement benefits, pension and life insurance payments are withheld in the case of same-sex unions, not granted the same recognition as heterosexual marriages.

The act, denying federal benefits and recognition to same-sex couples has made life financially complicated in the administration of two different sets of rules for corporations dealing with their employees.  A "friends of the court" brief signed by 278 signers representing 200 companies, city governments, law firms and other groups states that the law: "forces us to treat one class of our lawfully married employees differently than another, when our success depends upon the welfare and morale of all employees."

There exists a smorgasbord of varying state reactions to the same-sex marriage issue in the United States, unlike Canada, where the Supreme Court of Canada made it official and the federal government agreed, that same-sex marriage in Canada is legal. Two American women married in Canada in 2007. One died in 2009, leaving her estate to the other. Under DOMA. however, the Internal Revenue Service would not recognize the legitimacy of claim of the surviving spouse.

Edith Windsor, former spouse of Thea Clara Spyer, sued, with a federal appeals court striking down the 1996 law for the second time, as unconstitutional. "It's 2013, the face of the nation is changing and to be competitive, to win in business today, you need to change with the demographics of the nation", stated Bernadette Harrigan of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., one of the amicus brief signers.

The contradictory marriage laws in different states have complicated benefits and other programs of companies operating in multiple states. High administrative costs are imposed on companies who must maintain dual systems of tax withholding and payroll, resulting in additional tax burdens for companies and employees. And, they emphasize, the law and its fall-out impedes human relations.

"We have joined the amicus brief because, as an employer, we believe that all lawfully married employees should be treated by our company in the same way." Johnson & Johnson

"We don't want to have to ask employees about their orientation and we don't want to have to discriminate." Holdredge Wines, California

"Mars' decision to support the amicus brief was based on our belief that all married Mars Associates should be treated equally under the law." Mars Incorporated

Signing the brief were major companies like Walt Disney, Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, Levi Strauss, Johnson & Johnson, Marriott International, New York Life, Citigroup, Alcoa and others. In recognition that a majority of Americans now feel same-sex marriage should be legal, according to recent polls.