sex marriage following its enactment—the act was
not so much a vote for traditional marriage as it
was, pragmatically, a vote against same-sex marriage
and by extension the validity of homosexual lives in
general.
There would have been no DOMA, of course, if
President Clinton had not signed the act into law.
Cynics could point out Clinton’s beleaguered repu-
tation when it came to traditional marriage and thus
understand his backing of the law in terms of politi-
cal expediency. Alternatively, Clinton can be viewed
as a rare moderate voice in the 1996 political scene
that saw shades of gray when most saw black and
white. Clinton drew out a position that backed ho-
mosexual rights generally but also respected the
sanctity of marriage, an institution woven into the
very fabric of American society. Put another way, by
signing the bill and backing gays simultaneously, he
split the difference on the issue.
Impact After the bill’s passage, there was not a tidal
wave of states that enacted same-sex marriage laws.
In 1996, this was the thinking among many politi-
cians, particularly given the 1993 Hawaii Supreme
Court case that laid out the legal foundations of
same-sex marriage. What did happen was that Mas-
sachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, and
thirty-nine other states codified their own defense of
marriage acts in one form or another. Again, propo-
nents of same-sex marriage paint this barrage of de-
fense of marriage acts as a classic case of tyranny of
the majority.
The epilogue to this tale of controversial policy
has not yet been written, but thus far the legislative
successes of the camp opposed to same-sex marriage
have been stronger and more frequent, while the
pro-gay marriage group seems to have been on the
defensive since the passage of the 1996 act. Follow-
ing the DOMA, the anti-gay marriage lobby switched
to a state-level strategy of blocking same-sex mar-
riages. With its federal-level foundation in place, the
lobby could pursue legislative tactics favoring its
point of view in each individual state.
Further Reading
Hull, Kathleen E.Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural Pol-
itics of Love and Law.New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2006.
Mezey, Susan Gluck.Queers in Court: Gay Rights Law
and Public Policy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2007.
Pinello, Daniel R.America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Mar-
riage. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2006.
R. Matthew BeverlinSee also Christian Coalition; Clinton, Bill; Clin-
ton’s scandals; Conservatism in U.S. politics; Domes-
tic partnerships; Don’t ask, don’t tell; Gingrich, Newt;
Homosexuality and gay rights; Liberalism in U.S.
politics; Marriage and divorce. DeGeneres, Ellen
Identification American comedian and actor
Born January 26, 1958; Metairie, Louisiana
In April, 1997, DeGeneres came out on the cover ofTime
magazine. Later that month, her character came out on her
popular sitcom,Ellen, making it the first prime-time televi-
sion show with a gay or lesbian main character.
Comedian Ellen DeGeneres gained fame in the
early 1980’s without reference to her sexual orienta-The Nineties in America DeGeneres, Ellen 247
Ellen DeGeneres hosts the 1996 Grammy Awards in Los Angeles.
(AP/Wide World Photos)