Editor’s Note: Sources named Cynthia and Donna wanted to remain anonymous.
On the way to a business meeting in Jackson, Miss., on June 26, Cynthia received an abundance of texts at 9 a.m. 
The Defense of Marriage Act had been repealed, and as a lesbian planning to marry her fiancée Donna, the texts came with jubilation as the Supreme Court ruled the federal law unconstitutional.
Signed in 1996, the law recognized marriage as the union of a man and woman, cutting thousands of federal benefits to same-sex couples. In the Supreme Court case, United States v. Windsor, Edith Windsor sued after being placed with a $363,000 estate tax following the death of her same-sex spouse, according to glaad.org. 
Victory brought down Section 3 of DOMA, which stated same-sex marriages would not be federally recognized, but Section 2 remains intact: states still possess the right to deny same-sex marriage.
Christine Rush, Mississippi State University assistant professor of political science and public administration, said the Windsor case ended DOMA with the decision that states are the decision makers regarding marriage.
“The Windsor case reinforces the authority of states’ rights,” she said. “Although the Supreme Court’s decision declared the federal law, DOMA, unconstitutional, the decision also stated that individual state legislatures have the authority to make choices regarding same-sex marriage in each state.”
Because Mississippi does not recognize same-sex marriage, the repeal of DOMA has little effect on same-sex couples in Mississippi. 
Article 14, Section 263A of Mississippi’s constitution states marriage may be valid between a man and a woman and may not be recognized even if a same-sex couple marry in a different state.
Husbands Ravi Perry, assistant professor of political science and public administration, and Paris Prince, lecturer of business, married in Massachusetts. Since moving to Mississippi, the couple has not been able to share a family health insurance plan despite Mississippi State University’s nondiscrimination policy.
“If an institution had a nondiscrimination ordinance that included sexual orientation, I assumed wrongly that that would mean in terms of policy, such as employment policy–for example, health insurance–that if I’m employed then my spouse can also be covered under health insurance,” Perry said.
Prince said the policy distinguishes between his marriage with Perry and a heterosexual marriage in terms of treatment.
“Instead of us having a family health insurance plan, we now have a separate health insurance plan. That might incur extra costs, complications in terms of coordinating our family, etc.,” he said. “It’s unnecessary. It’s based on bias and prejudice, essentially.”
Rush said MSU’s benefits are determined by state legislation because the legislature makes decisions for all state universities in Mississippi.
Whit Waide, political science and public administration instructor, said Perry and Prince’s situation is patently unconstitutional. 
“It’s unconstitutional because of Article 4 of the United States Constitution which says, ‘Full faith and credit will be extended to the states,’” he said. 
Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says that states must recognize the “the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state,” according to law.cornell.edu.
“Reading that as courts have in prior “full faith” cases, it begs the question: what happens when a non-gay marriage state refuses to recognize a marriage that is recognized by a gay-marriage state?  This question has not been addressed by the courts.  And perhaps it never will be,” Waide said in an email.
Waide said some conservative figures contradict themselves.
 “It’s particularly interesting because the people who hate gay marriage the most — the lunatic, radical conservative Tea Party folks — are the ones that, if you do what they want to do, that is adhere strictly to the Constitution and what it said in 1789, you absolutely cannot deny people the ability to marry for gay marriage,” he said.
Desta Reff, joint Harvard-MSU delta fellow and postdoctoral associate, plans to start a family with her wife who is currently pregnant. However, Mississippi’s restrictions also hinder Reff’s wife from receiving benefits from state-provided health insurance. The couple pays out of pocket.
Reff recently moved to Mississippi with her wife, but they will travel to Boston, Mass., to have the child because of Mississippi’s laws.
“My wife is having a baby, and Mississippi won’t recognize our marriage. In Boston, they recognize our marriage,” she said. “Both of our names would be on the baby’s birth certificate. That’s something that wouldn’t happen in Mississippi.”
According to lambdalegal.org, the Family and Medical Leave Act gives federal employees unpaid leave to take care of family members, but only if a state recognizes every marriage including same-sex marriage. Reff said Mississippi’s laws complicate the legality on a state and federal level.
“Federally, we’re married, so I should be able to take time under that act and have my position (at work) saved, but in Mississippi, we’re not married,” she said. “If they were to deny me, that becomes very murky legal territory because it’s a federal law, and I’m entitled to it.”
With hospital visitations, Reff said the hospital would not let her visit her wife because the state does not recognize their legal relationship.
“If something were to happen to my wife in Mississippi, and she’s admitted — heaven forbid something happen to the baby — I’m not seen as a relative,” she said. “It’s crazy and devastating.”
The repeal of DOMA provides Reff the ability to sponsor her German wife for a green card as federal law handles immigration. 
Cynthia and Donna’s situation is uncommon. 
Five years ago, Cynthia and Donna decided to have a child. In the process, Donna donated eggs to Cynthia, who carried the child. 
But because of Mississippi’s ban on same-sex adoption, Donna holds no legal rights although she is the biological mother. 
“If I died, my family could take my children away from her,” Cynthia said. “When we went to have our daughter, there was no fertility doctor in Mississippi who would treat us. We had to go to Baton Rouge. There are antiquated fertility laws in Mississippi.”
Cynthia said Donna could not have her children treated in the hospital because she is not a legal parent. Besides complications with parental rights, the couple, who recently married in Maine, cannot file state taxes jointly, even though the repeal of DOMA lets them file federal taxes together. 
“DOMA doesn’t really affect Mississippians at all, except that financially, it is a big deal for us to be able to file (federal) taxes jointly,” she said. 
Despite Mississippi’s legislation, Cynthia and Donna have a happy life with a five-year-old daughter and a one-year-old son.
“As Southerners, we value family. It’s the way we’re raised. We want to live in family and community,” she said. “I could probably name 10 couples off the top of my head that went and had children like us.”
Perry said southern states’ opinions of same-sex marriage shifted significantly in the past 10 years.
“It’s obvious we need a change in the voting population to assist us in generating new leadership that will be responsive to the shift in public opinion,” he said.
Prince met with the president of the Human Rights Campaign and former governor Ronnie Musgrove regarding efforts to have substantive policy changes and legal action to address unconstitutional laws in Mississippi. He said equality will come to the state soon.
“Difference and diversity enhances society,” Prince said. “Discrimination erodes society.”