DOVER, Del. -- A divided Delaware state Senate voted Tuesday to make its state the 11th in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after hearing hours of passionate testimony from supporters and opponents.

The Senate's 12-9 vote sends the bill to Democratic Gov. Jack Markell, who supports the measure and planned to sign it later in the day. It would go into effect July 1.

"I think this is the right thing for Delaware," the governor said after the vote, while posing for pictures with supporters outside his legislative office. "It took an incredible team effort."

Gay rights activists and their supporters in the chamber erupted in cheers and applause following the Senate vote.

Delaware's same-sex marriage bill was introduced in the Democrat-controlled legislature last month, barely a year after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions. The bill won passage two weeks ago in the state House on a 23-18 vote.

While it doesn't give same-sex couples any more rights or benefits under Delaware law than those they have in civil unions, supporters argued same-sex couples deserve the dignity and respect of married couples. They also noted that if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars married gay couples from receiving federal benefits, civil unions would not provide protections or tax benefits under federal law to same-sex couples in Delaware.

Opponents, including scores of conservative religious leaders from across the state, argued same-sex marriage redefines and destroys a centuries-old institution that is a building block of society.

Under the bill, no new civil unions will be performed in Delaware after July 1, and existing civil unions will be converted to marriages over the next year. The legislation also states that same-sex unions established in other states will be treated the same as marriages under Delaware law.

The bill does not force clerics to perform same-sex marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs. But under an existing Delaware law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, business owners who refuse to provide marriage-related services to same-sex couples for reasons of conscience could be subject to discrimination claims.

Delaware joins neighboring Maryland and the nearby District of Columbia as jurisdictions that have approved gay marriage. Last week, Rhode Island became the 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, with independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee signing the bill an hour after its final passage.

Minnesota appeared poised to legalize gay marriage after the Democratic speaker of the state House said Tuesday that a gay marriage bill endorsed by the governor and likely to pass in the state Senate also now has enough backing in his chamber. The House will vote on the measure Thursday, and if it passes, the Democratic-led Senate could vote on it as soon as Saturday.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 6:19 PM EDT

Gabriel Bouys / AFP - Getty Images file

U.S. Cardinal Timothy Dolan attends a mass at the St Peter's basilica before the papal conclave in this March 2013 file photo.

Prominent U.S. Cardinal Timothy Dolan acknowledged Easter Sunday that the Catholic Church needs to forge a better relationship with the gay and lesbian community.

“We gotta do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people,” Dolan said. “And I admit, we haven’t been too good about that. We try our darndest to make sure we’re not anti-anybody.”

Dolan, the charismatic Archbishop of New York, made his comments on ABC’s “This Week” nearly one week after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, and the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that blocks federal recognition of gay marriages.

Dolan called for a more conciliatory approach to gay and lesbian Catholics who may feel alienated by Church doctrine, which is traditionally opposed to homosexuality.

“The first thing I’d say to them is, ‘I love you, too, and God loves you, and we want your happiness,’” he said.

But Dolan added that he wasn’t sure how Catholic leaders should conduct better outreach to homosexuals.

“I don’t know. We’re still trying. We’re trying our best to do it. We got to listen to people,” Dolan said. “Jesus died on the cross for them as much as he did for me.”

Despite the appeal for inclusiveness, Dolan said the Church is unlikely to reverse their position on same-sex marriage.

“Sexual love … is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally,” he said.

The Supreme Court could reshape marriage in the United States with its decision on Proposition 8, the California ban on gay marriage approved by the state's voters in 2008.

Here are 13 key moments from the transcript of Tuesday's arguments before the court.

1. Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending the California ban, summarizes his case:

“The accepted truth that — that the New York high court observed is one that is changing and changing rapidly in this country as people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. The question before this court is whether the Constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all 50 states.”

----

2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks about gays, discrimination and marriage.

Sotomayor: “Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any — anything to offer you in that regard.”

----

3. Justice Elena Kagan gets to the heart of the case against Proposition 8:

Kagan: “Mr. Cooper, could I just understand your argument. In reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite — opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State's principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?”

Cooper: “I -- Your Honor, that's the essential thrust of our —our position, yes.”

----

4. Justice Antonin Scalia, apparently not satisfied with one of Cooper's answers, appears to throw him a lifeline, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg jumps in to argue:

Scalia: “Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's — there's considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”

Ginsburg: “California — no, California does.”

Scalia: “I don't think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it — whether it harms or helps the child?”

Cooper: “No, Your Honor. And there's — there's — ”

Scalia: “But that's a possible deleterious effect, isn't it?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, it — it is certainly among the — ”

Ginsburg: “It wouldn't be in California, Mr. Cooper, because that's not an issue, is it? In California, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child.”

Cooper: “That's right, Your Honor. That is true. And — but — but, Your Honor, here's — here's the point — ”

Scalia: “I — it's true, but irrelevant. They're arguing for a nationwide rule which applies to states other than California, that every state must allow marriage by same-sex couples. And so even though states that believe it is harmful — and I take no position on whether it's harmful or not, but it is certainly true that — that there's no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”

----

5. Justice Anthony Kennedy raises a question about the welfare of children of gay couples:

Kennedy: “I — I think there's — there's substantial — that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, I certainly would not dispute the importance of that consideration. That consideration especially in the political process, where this issue is being debated and will continue to be debated, certainly, in California. It's being debated elsewhere. But on that — on that specific question, Your Honor, there simply is no data.”

----

6. Justice Stephen Breyer takes issue with Cooper's argument that procreation is a purpose of marriage:

Breyer: "Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.”

Cooper: “Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.”

----

7. A lighthearted moment as Kagan continues the questioning on marriage and procreation. Scalia mentions the late South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, who lived to 100 and fathered children as late as 73:

Kagan: “Because that's the same state interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?”

Cooper: “Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional — ”

(Laughter.)

Kagan: “No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”

(Laughter.)

Cooper: “Your Honor, society's — society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that — ”

Kagan: “Actually, I'm not even — ”

Scalia: “I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage — you know, are you fertile or are you not fertile?”

(Laughter.)

Scalia: “I suspect this court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don't you think?”

Kagan: “Well, I just asked about age. I didn't ask about anything else. That's not -- we ask about people's age all the time.”

Cooper: “Your Honor, and even asking about age, you would have to ask if both parties are infertile. Again — ”

Scalia: “Strom Thurmond was — was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed.”

(Laughter.)

Cooper: “Very few men — very few men outlive their own fertility.”

----

8. Theodore Olson, arguing against Proposition 8, summarizes his case:

“I thought that it would be important for this court to have Proposition 8 put in context, what it does. It walls-off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this court, thus stigmatizing a class of Californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal, and not OK.”

----

9. Justice Scalia asks a question about history, and Olson answers with a question of his own:

Scalia: “I'm curious, when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?”

Olson: “When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?”

10. Chief Justice John Roberts explores the meaning of the word “marriage” — and the meaning of friendship:

Roberts: “So it's just about — it's just about the label in this case.”

Olson: “The label is — ”

Roberts: “Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.”

Olson: “The label ‘marriage’ means something. Even our opponents — ”

Roberts: “Sure. If you tell — if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's it seems to me what the — what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're — all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.”

Olson: “It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical.”

----

11. Justice Sotomayor pushes Olson on the slippery slope argument, a favorite of conservatives.

Sotomayor: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?

Olson: "Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

----

12. Kennedy worries about a decision that goes too far.

Kennedy: “The problem — the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a cliff. Whatever that was. (Laughter.) But you're — you're doing so in a — in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on — on standing. I just wonder if — if the case was properly granted.”

Olson: “Oh, the case was certainly properly granted, Your Honor. I mean, there was a full trial of all of these issues. There was a 12-day trial, the judge insisted on evidence on all of these questions. This — this is a — ”

Kennedy: “But that's not the issue the Ninth Circuit decided.”

Olson: “The issue — yes, the Ninth Circuit looked at it and decided because of your decision on the Romer case, this Court's decision on the Romer case, that it could be decided on the narrower issue, but it certainly was an appropriate case to grant. And those issues that I've been describing are certainly fundamental to the case. And -- and I don't want to abuse the Court's indulgence, that what I — you suggested that this is uncharted waters. It was uncharted waters when this Court, in 1967, in the Loving decision said that interracial — prohibitions on interracial marriages, which still existed in 16 states, were unconstitutional.”

Kennedy: “It was hundreds of years old in the common law countries. This was new to the United States.”

Olson: “And — and what we have here — ”

Kennedy: “So — so that's not accurate.”

Olson: “I — I respectfully submit that we've under — we've learned to understand more about sexual orientation and what it means to individuals. I guess the — the language that Justice Ginsburg used at the closing of the VMI case is an important thing, it resonates with me, ‘A prime part of the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded.’”

----

13. Roberts questions Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing for the Obama administration against Proposition 8. The chief justice wonders about the scope of the court’s ruling:

Roberts:  “I don't want to — I want you to get back to Justice Alito's other points, but is it the position of the United States that same-sex marriage is not required throughout the country?”

Verrilli: “We are not — we are not taking the position that it is required throughout the country. We think that that ought to be left open for a future adjudication in other states that don't have the situation California has.”

Fred W. McDarrah / Getty Images

One month after the demonstrations at the Stonewall Inn, activist Marty Robinson speaks to a crowd before the first mass march in support of gay rights in New York on July 27, 1969.

From its beginning with riots against police oppression of gays in New York City more than 40 years ago, the fight for gay rights continues today on new fronts: over marriage, therapies to “cure” homosexuals and one of the country's most popular institutions, the Boy Scouts of America.

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two landmark, same-sex-marriage cases.

“The swift road to marriage equality has produced millions of conversations around the dinner table and water cooler on the freedom of every American to marry the person they love. It is these conversations that have changed minds. But while we've reached the tipping point on marriage, there's still a ways to go for full LGBT equality, like ending bullying in schools and workplace discrimination,” Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the LGBT advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement.

Here is a look at some of the key moments in American LGBT history:

June 28, 1969: Start of the gay rights movement
The Stonewall Riots begin after police raid a popular unlicensed gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, in New York City's Greenwich Village. The riots, which lasted for days, were triggered by police harassment of gays, according to media reports. This is considered by many to herald the start of the gay rights movement in the U.S.

June 27-28, 1970: First gay pride parades
On the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, the nation's first gay pride parades are held in four cities – New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Fred Sergeant, who attended the NYC parade, reflected in the Village Voice: “Back then, it took a new sense of audacity and courage to take that giant step into the streets of Midtown Manhattan. ... I stayed at the head of the march the entire way, and at one point, I climbed onto the base of a light pole and looked back. I was astonished; we stretched out as far as I could see, thousands of us.” Pride events now are held worldwide every year.

AP

San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, left, and Mayor George Moscone in April 1977.

Nov. 27, 1978: Assassination of Harvey Milk
Milk became the first openly gay man elected to office in a major U.S. city when he won a seat on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in early 1978. An outspoken advocate for gay rights, he urged gays to come out and fight for their rights. Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by former supervisor Dan White. But Milk's legacy has lived on and California has designated May 22 as a day of “special significance” in his honor.

1981: The AIDS crisis
Gay advocacy groups form to deal with the crisis gripping the community amid a slow government response to AIDS and the linking of the disease with gay men. Over the years, the AIDS Quilt will form, and some well-known figures will succumb to AIDS, including actor Rock Hudson, or be diagnosed with it, like basketball star Magic Johnson.

Wilfredo Lee / AP

President Bill Clinton answers questions during a news conference in Taylor, Mich., in 1996.

1993: 'Don't ask, don't tell'
President Bill Clinton enacts "don't ask, don't tell," a policy preventing gays from openly serving in the military. Under it, an estimated 13,000 people were expelled from the U.S. Armed Forces. President Barack Obama repealed the policy in 2011. 

1996: Congress bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage (DOMA)
Congress passes the Defense of Marriage Act. Section 3 of the statute bars recognition of same-sex marriage, affecting more than 1,100 provisions of federal laws. It denies gay couples the right to file joint taxes and the protections of the Family Medical and Leave Act, and it blocks surviving spouses from accessing veterans’ benefits, among other things. The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to DOMA on March 27, 2013. Bill Clinton, who signed the legislation, recently came out against the law and asked the Supreme Court to repeal it.

April 30, 1997: 'Yep, I'm gay' -- Degeneres comes out 
Ellen Degeneres comes out on her television show, "Ellen," in an episode that drew in 42 million viewers. Her ratings plunged, which she said was due to a lack of promotion, and the show was pulled the next season, according to The Hollywood Reporter. But she bounced back and she now hosts a popular afternoon talk show, "The Ellen Degeneres Show." Her “coming out” heralded an era of other gay celebrities following suit, and LGBT leading ladies and men have in the last year said they felt it was unnecessary to reveal their sexual preference.

Evan Agostini / Getty Images

Candlelight vigil for slain gay Wyoming student Matthew Shepard.

Oct. 12, 1998: Matthew Shepard's beating death
Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson rob and beat Shepherd, a 21-year-old college student, and tie him to a split-rail fence outside of Laramie, Wyo. He dies on Oct. 12, less than a week after the attack. The murder, for which the pair are each serving two consecutive life sentences, inspired "The Laramie Project," a play and later film about Laramie in the year after the murder, and federal hate crimes legislation approved in 2009 that bears Shepard's name.

2000: Boy Scouts can ban gays
The Supreme Court rules that the Boy Scouts of America can bar gay Scouts and leaders from membership, saying that as a private youth organization it has the right to do so. Under increasing pressure in recent years to change the policy, the BSA has said it will hold a vote on the controversial membership guidelines in May.

Toby Talbot / AP

Lawyers Susan Murray, left, and Beth Robinson brought a lawsuit before the Vermont Supreme Court that led to the court's decision on same-sex marriage in 2000.

2000: First state to allow same-sex civil unions
Vermont becomes the first state to allow same-sex couples to join their lives via civil unions. The state approved same-sex marriage in 2009.

2003: Anti-sodomy law struck down
The Supreme Court strikes down a Texas anti-sodomy law, reversing an earlier decision made in another case 17 years earlier that Justice Anthony Kennedy said “demeans the lives of homosexual persons.” Gays are ''entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy said for the court, according to The New York Times. ''The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.'' 

2004: State same-sex marriage bans
A dozen states pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. The amendments become a popular method to attempt to block legislative acts and judicial decisions on the issue.

Rich Pedroncelli / AP

Jeff Barr, left, places a wedding ring on Wes Wilkinson at the Yolo County clerk's office in Woodland, Calif. on June 16, 2008. They were among the first gay couples to wed in Yolo County after the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages.

2008: California's Prop. 8 nixes gay marriage
California’s Supreme Court rules that gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed. For a short time that year, some 18,000 same-sex couples tie the knot in the Golden State. But in November, voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (Proposition 8) after a hard-fought, multimillion-dollar campaign – one of the most expensive on this issue. The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Prop. 8 on March 26, 2013.

Pete Souza / White House via EPA

In an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC's "Good Morning America," on May 9, 2012, President Barack Obama spoke in support of gay marriage for the first time as president.

May 9, 2012: First sitting president to support same-sex marriage
Barack Obama becomes the first sitting U.S. president to back marriage for gay and lesbian couples. It marked a reversal from his 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative. His announcement came one day after voters in North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as well as civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

Nov. 4, 2012: In a first, gay marriage wins at the ballot box
Voters in Maine approve same-sex marriage in the first vote brought by supporters, while voters in Maryland and Washington uphold state legislation allowing gays and lesbians to wed. And in Minnesota, voters reject – for just the second time nationwide – a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Related:

Same-sex marriage's big day in court: What's at stake?

Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief

Even before Supreme Court rules, gay marriage battles rage in the states

Photo courtesy Tracy Johnson

Donna Johnson, left, and Tracy Johnson at their home in Raeford, N.C., in 2012.

When her spouse was killed in Afghanistan, Tracy Johnson drove across town to her mother-in-law’s house — clutching her marriage certificate — so she could hear the Army’s formal notification. No one from the military came to her door.

She later watched as the American flag that cloaked the coffin of her spouse, Donna Johnson, was offered, not to her, but to Donna Johnson’s mother – the next of kin, as U.S. law stipulates. She was denied death benefits, she said, that are standard issue to heterosexual spouses of service members who die in action: free health care, tuition assistance, and monthly indemnity compensation of about $1,200.

And then there was the ring. On Valentine’s Day 2012, Tracy Johnson placed that band on her wife's finger during their marriage ceremony in Washington, D.C. Last October, as Johnson escorted her wife's body home from Dover Air Force Base, the Army asked Johnson to carry the wedding ring, designated as a “personal effect.” After arriving in Fayetteville, N.C., Johnson was obliged, by a federal statute, to deliver the ring to an Army officer who then provided it to Donna Johnson’s mother who, in turn, gave it back to Tracy Johnson. She wears it on her finger today.

“I’m not considered ‘family’ (by the military). I’m not considered a spouse and I’m damn sure not considered a widow, by definition,” said Johnson, an Army National Guard staff sergeant who served in Iraq. “We didn’t marry for any of those benefits. We married out of love.

“And I’m not standing up here, whining: ‘Woe is me.’ We were adults, big girls, and we knew what we were getting ourselves into. But it doesn’t mean I have to stand idly by and see all this happen to somebody else who’s in a same-sex marriage (in the military).”

Johnson's experiences were mandated by the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The 1996 law — followed by the Department of Defense and all federal agencies — bars same-sex military spouses from benefits made available to the heterosexual spouses of service members: dental and medical insurance, discounted military housing, and military ID cards, which allow spouses to visit on-base commissaries, child-care facilities and movie theaters.

Under DOMA, military leaders were not allowed to officially acknowledge Johnson, who believes she may be the first same-sex spouse to lose a partner to combat following the 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) — the policy that kept gays from openly serving in the armed forces. (Donna Johnson’s mother specifically asked Tracy Johnson to accompany the body home, allowing her a seat on the plane.) The only federal employee who openly referred to the dead soldier as Johnson's “wife,” was President Barack Obama, who sent Johnson a letter of condolence, she said.

On Thursday, Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, told congressional members during a confirmation hearing that he is "fully committed ... to doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members."

Furthermore, during his inauguration address on Jan. 21, Obama spoke broadly of gay rights, saying: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law."

Battle for equality
For now, current law stipulates that, following the military death of a same-sex spouse, the branches first must notify the “primary next-of-kin” — in Donna Johnson’s case, her parents. If U.S. troops list a same-sex spouse on their emergency-contact forms, that spouse eventually will receive word from the military — after the blood family is told. 

“It is not like, though, it’s a day or 'x' number of weeks later. It would be almost immediately,” said Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman. “They (branch officers) would talk to primary next-of-kin first and relay the information. And then, whoever the (other designated person is), they would call them very soon thereafter. So we’re talking minutes or hours as opposed to days, weeks or months.

“DOMA is still the law we uphold. Even though that (DADT) repeal has been taken care of, there are certain benefits that are not applicable across the force,” Christensen added.

But pressure is mounting on the Pentagon and the White House to change that notification policy — and the other gaps in same-sex spousal benefits — by writing an executive order or a DOD-wide regulation.

Same-sex advocacy groups described the Jan. 25 electionof same-sex wife Ashley Broadway as Fort Bragg’s 2013 “spouse of the year” as a mandate to the military to figure out a way to override DOMA. That same day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama is contemplating how benefits could be administratively extended to the spouses of gay service members, the Washington Blade reported.

'Just like all the other Army wives'
“No military spouse should have to hear second-hand that something has happened to their service member,” said Stephen Peters, president of the American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a Washington, D.C.-based support network for lesbian and gay military families. 

"No military spouse should have to watch the flag that is draped over the coffin of his or her service member folded and handed to anyone else,” added Peters, whose husband, Marine Corps Maj. Alasdair Mackay, returned safely in January from a one-year deployment to Afghanistan. “Our families live through the daily fear of worrying about having something happen to their service member while they’re deployed. But we do it without access to the same supports and benefits that other military families get. Our service members, they go to war for our country for equality, yet their families are treated as if they aren’t important, as if they are somehow second class.”

Courtesy of Stephen Peters

Marine Corps Maj. Alasdair Mackay and Stephen Peters were married in New York City during Christmas 2011 before Mackay deployed to Afghanistan.

The AMPA asserts that Tracy Johnson was the first — and only, to date — same-sex spouse to lose a military wife or husband in combat. It's possible, however, that another same-sex spouse suffered that type of tragedy before DADT was rescinded and when members were not open about their sexual orientation — even if they were legally married. 

Tracy Johnson was not listed on the emergency notification form that service members fill out, she said. Because DADT had been revoked, Donna Johnson assumed that Tracy would receive the same benefits that are granted to all military spouses — for example, being the first person to be notified by the military should a wife or husband die in combat, Johnson said. 

"Donna didn't even realize she had to put me down. She thought I was automatically extended that benefit as her wife — just like all the other Army wives who are the first ones to notified," she said.

'What's right is right'
The point is moot — even if Tracy Johnson was listed, due to DOMA she still would not have been the first person that military officials would have visited in the hours after Donna Johnson was killed. 

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA.

Near Fort Bragg, N.C., Johnson holds tight to a fine philosophical line — honoring her wife and the Army while questioning the law. She describes how individual Army members privately treated her “with respect and compassion”, giving her an American flag — though not the same flag atop the coffin — during a private ceremony before Donna Johnson’s funeral. She lauds Donna Johnson’s family for supporting her, insisting that she sit with them in the front row during the memorial service.

But Donna Johnson’s mother, Sandra, is not so charitable with her summary of the events.

“Tracy’s unit supports her, her family supports her, and she was given support by the community itself. Why can’t the federal family be supportive?” Sandra Johnson asked. “I know: It’s the law. But what’s fair is fair. What’s right is right.

“The family is already going through grief. You don’t keep putting a knife in the wound and make it deeper. She’s dead, she’s gone, she can’t be brought back. So why are you treating this family, and treating Tracy, with this indignation?”

Related: Spouses club relents, says lesbian Army wife can be 'full member'