Editing Defense of Marriage Act (section)

==Challenges to Section 2 in federal court==
Section 2 of DOMA states to give legal relief to any state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Section 2 posits [[States' rights#States' rights as code word|a conflict between states' rights and civil rights]].  Various federal lawsuits, some filed alongside challenges to Section 3, have challenged Section 2.
* ''In re Kandu'': A same-sex couple in the state of Washington, who had married in Canada, attempted to file a joint bankruptcy petition, but were not allowed to do so.<ref>''[https://www.domawatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf In re Kandu] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201028200530/https://www.domawatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf |date=October 28, 2020 }},'' 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004). Retrieved February 26, 2011.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=DOMA's Unlikely Victim's |work=The Advocate |date=September 28, 2004 |page=15 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_mQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA15 |access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref>
* ''Wilson v. Ake'', an unsuccessful attempt by a Florida same-sex couple, married in Massachusetts, to have their marriage license accepted in Florida.{{#tag:ref|The court held that in enacting Section 2 of DOMA "Congress’ actions are an appropriate exercise of its power to regulate conflicts between the laws of two different States" under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.<ref>''[[Wilson v. Ake]]'', 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005).</ref>|group=n}}
* ''Smelt v. Orange County'' and ''Smelt v. United States'': In February 2004, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer sued [[Orange County, California]], in federal court for refusing to issue them a marriage license. The district court ruled that the couple did not have [[Standing (law)|standing]] to challenge Section 2 of DOMA and rejected their challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3. On May 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit,<ref>''Smelt v. County of Orange'', [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1355261.html 447 F.3d 673] (9th Cir. 2006). Retrieved August 2, 2012.</ref> and on October 10 the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] refused to consider the couple's appeal.<ref name=baro>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ebar.com/|title=Bay Area Reporter|website=Bay Area Reporter}}</ref> On March 9, 2009, the same couple, having legally married in California, filed ''[[Smelt v. United States]]'', challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California's [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]].<ref>''Smelt v. United States'', [https://www.scribd.com/doc/15097245/Smelt-v-United-States-of-America-Notice-of-Removal Notice of Removal]. Retrieved November 6, 2009.</ref> District Judge [[David O. Carter]] dismissed the case on August 24, because the couple had not applied for and been denied any federal benefit and therefore lacked "an injury in fact."<ref>{{cite web |publisher=UPI |url=http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/25/Gay-California-couples-lawsuit-dismissed/UPI-41301251219816/ |title=Gay California couple's lawsuit dismissed |access-date=February 26, 2011}}</ref>
* ''Bishop v. United States'': Two lesbian couples in Oklahoma, one of which couples sought a marriage license and the other to have the state recognize either their Canadian marriage or their Vermont civil union.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11832346192541496082&q=Bishop+v.+Oklahoma& ''Bishop v. Oklahoma''], 447 F.Supp.2d 1239 (N.D. Okla. 2006). Retrieved February 8, 2012.</ref><ref>[https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okndce/4:2004cv00848/7495/148/0.pdf ''Bishop v. US''], No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW, slip op. (N.D. Okla. November 24, 2009). Retrieved August 1, 2012.</ref> The court stayed consideration of the case pending the outcome of ''Windsor''.  Later it ruled the couple challenging Section 2 did not have standing, but ruled Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional under ''[[Bishop v. Oklahoma]]''.

===''Obergefell v. Hodges''===
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' that the [[Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]] requires all U.S. state laws to recognize same-sex marriages.<ref name="Obergefell v. Hodges">{{cite court |litigants=Obergefell v. Hodges |vol=576 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=___ |pinpoint=___ |date=2015 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626145937/http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf |archive-date=2015-06-26 |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2015 |quote=The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.}}</ref>  This left Section 2 of DOMA as superseded and unenforceable.