Jun 26, 2013 · A divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of a law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same federal benefits provided to others.

Statement from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on July 1, 2013: “After last week’s decision by the Supreme Court holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, legally married same-sex spouses are eligible family members.

Eligibility already was extended to same-sex spouses following a 2013 court ruling.

Lesbian, gay, & bisexual topics All about gay marriages: (a.k.a. same-sex marriages & SSM), civil unions, & domestic partnerships).

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Brazil since 16 May 2013, following a National Justice Council decision, which orders notaries of every state to perform same-sex …

The following questions and answers provide information to individuals of the same sex who are lawfully married (same-sex spouses). These questions and answers reflect the holdings in Revenue Ruling 2013-17 in 2013-38 IRB 201. Q1. When are individuals of the same sex lawfully married for federal

Same-sex marriage laws differ from state to state. Read about the history of same-sex marriage and which states currently allow it.

2 couples. Therefore, same-sex couples who are in a civil union or other forms of domestic partnership other than marriage will remain ineligible for most Federal benefits …

Same-sex marriage in the United States was initially established on a state-by-state basis, expanding from 1 state in 2004 to 36 states in 2015, when, on June 26, 2015, same-sex marriage was established in all 50 states as a result of the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark civil rights case of Obergefell v.