Dixon & Moseley | Attorneys At Law

Call For A Consultation: 317-350-4108

  • Home
  • About
    • Julie C. Dixon
    • Alexander Moseley
    • Matthew McConnell
    • Adrian DeNeen
  • Practice Areas
    • Family Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Appellate Practice
    • General Practice
    • Probate & Estate Planning
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Pay Online
Dixon & Moseley | Attorneys At Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Julie C. Dixon
    • Alexander Moseley
    • Matthew McConnell
    • Adrian DeNeen
  • Practice Areas
    • Family Law
      • Adoption
      • Child Custody
      • Child Support/College Expenses
      • Defense Of Protective Orders
      • Divorce Litigation
      • Grandparent Visitation
      • Guardianships
      • High-Asset Divorces
      • Legal Separation
      • Paternity
      • Pre- And Post-Nuptials
      • Protective Orders
      • Relocation
    • Criminal Law
      • Indiana Criminal Appeals Lawyer
      • Indiana DUI Lawyer
      • Indianapolis Criminal Defense Attorney
      • Indianapolis Drug Crime Attorney
    • Appellate Practice
      • Petition For Rehearing
      • Interlocutory Appeals
      • Divorce Appeals
      • Child Custody Appeals
      • Civil Appeals
      • Petition For Rehearing
    • General Practice
      • Business Law
      • Indiana Civil Litigation Attorney
      • Indiana Civil Statutes Of Limitations
    • Probate & Estate Planning
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Pay Online

 317-350-4108

The Attorneys at Dixon & Moseley, P.C.

Strong, Trial-Ready Advocates Protecting Your Rights

  1. Home
  2.  | 
  3. Family Law
  4.  | 
  5. US Supreme Court Rules that DOMA is unconstitutional

US Supreme Court Rules that DOMA is unconstitutional

On Behalf of Dixon & Moseley, P.C. | Jul 5, 2013 | Family Law

There is no escaping the endless news stories involving the controversial issue of gay marriage lately, and Wednesday June 26, 2013, was no different. In fact, if you have twitter, facebook, or internet access for that matter, there was no escaping the conversations about the United States Supreme Court decision holding that DOMA is unconstitutional.

DOMA stands for the “Defense of Marriage Act” which was enacted by Congress in 1996.1 DOMA essentially codified the federal rule that if a state legalized marriage between same sex couples, another state was no required to recognize that union, even if entered into legally in another state. DOMA was a departure from the United States Constitutional provision which requires each state to give full faith and credit to other state’s laws.2

For example, if an opposite sex couple enters into a valid marriage in Nevada, every other state in the United States, must recognize that union as a valid and legal marriage, which means that if the couple lives in another state, or move to another state, the other state must treat the Nevada married couple as having a legal and valid marriage.

Currently, thirteen (13) states in the United States, and the District of Columbia, have legalized gay marriage, with Massachusetts being the first in 2004:

  • Massachusetts (May 17, 2004)
  • Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008)
  • Iowa (Apr. 24. 2009)
  • Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009)
  • New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010)
  • District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) (March 3, 2010)
  • New York (June 24, 2011)
  • Maryland (Nov. 6, 2012)
  • Maine (Nov. 6, 2012)
  • Washington (Nov. 6, 2012)
  • Rhode Island (May 2, 2013)
  • Delaware (May 7, 2013)
  • Minnesota (May 14, 2013)
  • California (June 26, 2013)3
  • Thus, prior to the Supreme Court’s holding on June 26th, DOMA allowed any other state not to recognize a legally entered into marriage in one of the states that legalized gay marriages. Thus, if a same sex couple legally married in New York, and then moved to Indiana, Indiana did not have to recognize that union as a legal marriage, nor provide any of the state benefits to married, couples, or apply the laws (such as divorce, or probate following the death of a spouse) to that couple.

    In United States v. Windsor4 the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples, who have entered into legal marriages in states which have legalized same sex marriages, will receive equal treatment under federal law with regard to income taxes, estate taxes and social security benefits.

    We hope that this blog post has been helpful in understanding the recent United States Supreme Court holding. Dixon & Moseley, P.C. practices throughout the state of Indiana. This blog post was written by attorney, Lori Schmeltzer.

  • 28 USC § 1738C
  • US Const. Art. IV, Sec. 1
  • https://gaymarriage.procon.org/
  • United States v. Windsor
  • Recent Posts

    • What Is a Notice of Appeal in Indiana? A Guide to Starting an Indiana Appeal (2026)
    • What Orders Can Be Appealed in Indiana? A Guide to Final Judgments, Interlocutory Appeals, and Appellate Rights (2026)
    • How Many Days Do You Have to Appeal in Indiana? (2026)
    • How to Appeal a Case in Indiana: Step-by-Step Guide, Deadlines, Costs, and Common Mistakes (2026)
    • Common Grounds for Appeal in Indiana Civil Cases (Complete Guide)

    Archives

    Categories

    RSS Feed

    Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

    Reach Out Now For A Confidential Consultation

    Dixon & Moseley | Attorneys At Law

    Office Address

    50 East 91st Street
    Suite 200
    Indianapolis, IN 46240

      Indianapolis Law Office

    Phone Number

    317-350-4108

    • Follow
    • Follow

    © 2026 Dixon & Moseley, P.C. • All Rights Reserved

    Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw

    Review Us
    Pay Online