	Introduction

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, P.L. 104-199 ) "[t]o define and protect the institution of marriage." DOMA (1) allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships and (2) limits the recognition of these same-sex partnerships for purposes of any act of Congress or by any federal bureau or agency. Federal employees are permitted by law to extend certain health, long-term care, and other benefits to their spouses. DOMA prohibits the distribution of these spousal benefits to same-sex partners. On June 2, 2010, President Obama released a second memorandum that extended specific benefits and perquisites to the same-sex partners of federal employees. On November 18, 2011, Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced S. 1910 , the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2011, and Representative Tammy Baldwin introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3485 . On May 16, 2012, S. 1910 was ordered to be reported favorably from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. No further action was taken on the bill. The Defense of Marriage Act and Federal Benefits

The federal government provides a variety of benefits to federal civilian and military employees and retirees. Among these benefits are health insurance; enhanced dental and vision benefits; retirement and disability benefits and plans; survivor benefits; family, medical, and emergency leave; and reimbursement of relocation costs. Executive Branch Actions to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees

Some benefits to federal employees are extended specifically to the spouse of the federal employee, while the laws and regulations governing other benefits may not explicitly use the term spouse. The benefit is also extended to a same-sex partner's children. It also provides information on whether these benefits are available to the same-sex partners of federal employees. Health care costs are shared between the federal government and the enrollee. Title 5 does not define the word marriage ; however, the Code of Federal Regulations defines marriage for purposes of determining eligibility for federal retirement benefits under Title 5 as "a marriage recognized in law or equity under the whole law of the jurisdiction with the most significant interest in the marital status of the employee, member, or retiree unless the law of that jurisdiction is contrary to the public policy of the United States." 112th Congress

In the 112 th Congress, however, two bills were introduced that, if enacted, would have provided insurance, travel, and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. That same day, Representative Tammy Baldwin introduced a companion bill, H.R. Chapters 89, 89A, 89B); retirement and disability benefits and plans (5 U.S.C. In the affidavit, the employee would have had to "attest" that he or she was in a "committed domestic-partnership," which included the following conditions:
the partners "are in a committed domestic-partnership relationship with each other ... and intend to remain so indefinitely"; the partners "have a common residence and intend to continue to do so"; the partners are at least 18 years old and are "mentally competent to consent to contract"; the partners "share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations"; the partners are not "married to or in a domestic partnership with anyone except each other"; the partners are not related by blood in a way that would prohibit legal marriage between individuals otherwise eligible to marry in the jurisdiction"; and the partners would be subject to the same ethical standards, financial disclosures, and conflict of interest requirements as those placed on the spouses of federal employees (5 U.S.C. Some Potential Policy Considerations Regarding Same-Sex Benefits and Federal Employees

This section provides analysis of some potential policy considerations Congress may consider that are related to federal employees and the extension of health and other benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The Administration has extended some benefits to same-sex partners and has argued that its actions are within the parameters of existing laws. Estimates presented at congressional testimony in 2009 indicated that there were 34,000 federal employees in same-sex relationships, including state-recognized marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. Generally, the 2012 data demonstrated that health care benefits were "more prevalent for same-sex partners than for [unmarried] opposite-sex partners." Cost Estimates of Providing Domestic Partner Benefits to Federal Employees

In November 2012, CBO released its score of S. 1910 , which, as described above, sought to extend certain benefits and responsibilities to the same-sex partners of federal employees and annuitants. In testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of Columbia on July 8, 2009, Office of Personnel Management Director Berry estimated that extending benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees and annuitants would have cost the government $56 million in 2010. As noted earlier in this report, when DOMA was enacted, the House report that accompanied the legislation stated that a primary goal of the law was to "preserve scarce government resources." This report, however, does not address the ethical and legal debates surrounding DOMA and same-sex marriage. The extension of this benefit often increases the tax liability of a same-sex couple.
The information provided in this report reflects law and policies prior to the 2013 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor.
The federal government provides a variety of benefits to its 4.4 million civilian and military employees and 4.7 million civilian and military retirees. Among these benefits are health insurance; enhanced dental and vision benefits; survivor benefits; retirement and disability benefits; family, medical, and emergency leave; and reimbursement of relocation costs. Pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. Chapters 89, 89A, 89B, and other statutes, federal employees may extend these benefits to eligible spouses and children.
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, P.L. 104-199; 1 U.S.C §7) "[t]o define and protect the institution of marriage." DOMA contains two provisions. The first provision allows all states, territories, possessions, and Indian tribes to refuse to recognize an act of any other jurisdiction that designates a relationship between individuals of the same sex as a marriage. The second provision prohibits federal recognition of these unions for purposes of federal enactments. Pursuant to DOMA, the same-sex partners of federal employees are not eligible to receive federal benefits that are extended to the spouses of federal employees. An estimated 34,000 federal employees are in same-sex relationships—including state-recognized marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships.
The Obama Administration has extended certain benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees and annuitants—and argued that it has done so within the parameters of existing federal statutes. On June 2, 2010, President Obama released a memorandum that extended specific benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, including coverage of travel, relocation, and subsistence payments.
Some Members of Congress argue that same-sex partners of federal employees should have access to benefits afforded married, opposite-sex couples in order to attract the most efficient and effective employees to federal service. Other Members of Congress argue that the law prohibits the extension of such benefits, and, therefore, actions to distribute any spousal benefits to same-sex couples is contrary to both the text and spirit of DOMA.
Congress has had a long-standing interest in overseeing the benefits provided to federal employees. On the one hand, the federal government seeks to attract the most effective, highly trained workforce to address technical and complex issues. On the other hand, finite resources can present challenges when considering whether to extend benefits to federal employees. When DOMA was enacted, the House report that accompanied the legislation stated that a primary goal of the law was to "preserve scarce government resources."
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending benefits to the partners of employees in same-sex relationships pursuant to S. 1910 would cost the federal government $144 million in discretionary spending between 2013 and 2022. CBO also estimated, however, that extending the benefits could "limit future rate increases" in federal health care costs because health care providers would be required to recover certain health care costs that previously went unrecovered. These recovered costs could lower the federal government's health care premiums.
In the 112th Congress, two bills were introduced that, if enacted, would have permitted federal employees to extend insurance, long-term care, and other benefits to same-sex partners. On November 18, 2011, Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced S. 1910, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2011. That same day, Representative Tammy Baldwin introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3485, also called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2011, in the House. On May 16, 2012, S. 1910 was ordered to be reported favorably from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3485 was referred to multiple committees, but no further action was taken on the bill.
This report examines current policies on the application of benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees and reviews certain policy debates about the extension or removal of these benefits. This report also presents data on the prevalence of same-sex partner benefits in the private and public sector. This report focuses on federal benefits for same-sex partners and not on same-sex relationships in general. For more information on the implementation of DOMA and how it affects same-sex partnerships, see CRS Report RL31994, Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues, by [author name scrubbed]. For information on private sector employee benefit plans and same-sex partner benefits, see CRS Report R41998, Same-Sex Marriage and Employee Benefit Plans: Legal Considerations, by Jennifer Staman and CRS Report RS21897, The Effect of State-Legalized Same-Sex Marriage on Social Security Benefits, Pensions, and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), by [author name scrubbed].