Windsor v. United States involved the Defense of Marriage Act. What conclusion did the Court reach?

• A. The federal government may define marriage for federal purposes.
• B. The federal government cannot define marriage; marriage is a state issue.
• C. The Court avoided ruling on DOMA.
• D. Marriage is an international matter.

Answer: (B)

The central idea is federalism in action: marriage is defined by the states, and the federal government must respect that state definition when determining eligibility for federal benefits. In Windsor, the Court held that Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman, imposed a federal definition that created a discriminatory two-tier system against same-sex couples. That violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal dignity to persons under the Due Process principle in the Fifth Amendment. So the federal government cannot define marriage in a way that excludes same-sex marriages recognized by states; federal recognition should align with state definitions.

That’s why the correct conclusion is that the federal government cannot define marriage for federal purposes; marriage is a state issue. The other choices don’t fit because the Court did rule on DOMA and found the federal definition unconstitutional, and the issue is not about international matters.