n its June, 2013, Windsor decision, the US Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage as one man/one woman and said that the federal government must accept, instead, the varied definitions of marriage used by the states, including same-sex marriage. One consequence is the requirement, being applied gradually across federal programs, that recipients of federal funds to provide services interpret “marriage,” “spouse,” “dependent,” etc., to include legally married same-sex spouses. That is, in these federally funded programs, those terms may not be defined according to that now illegal federal definition of marriage but instead must follow the varied definitions used by the states. Even when the private organization receiving the federal funds is located in a state that bans same-sex marriage, the organization is required to accept every legal same-sex marriage along with opposite-sex marriages.

The policy does not apply to the private organization itself — recipients of the federal dollars are not required all of a sudden, e.g., to offer spousal benefits to same-sex spouses (but a state law or court decision may require that). Rather, as the organizations operate the federally funded program, whenever the terms “marriage,” “spouse,” etc., appear, those terms have to be interpreted to include same-sex marriages. Thus, if to be eligible for the program the income of both the applicant and his or her “spouse” has to be below a certain limit, now the income of both same-sex and opposite-sex spouses must be totaled. And so on. The federal government is applying the policy going forward, when grants are renewed or new grant programs are created, rather than requiring the organizations to change their procedures mid-grant.

The change is being rolled out slowly, not just because grant programs are on different renewal cycles, but because of two other kinds of complexity. One is federalism. In many cases, the federal funds are given to states to fund services provided by the states themselves, or for the states to award the funds to private organizations to provide the services. A (dwindling) number of states have a law or constitutional provision not recognizing SSM. The federal government acknowledges that it cannot simply require such state governments to treat same-sex and opposite-sex marriages the same, even through federal dollars are involved. So far it is “encouraging” states to adopt a marriage-equality position in these federally funded programs; it seems that federal lawyers are busy deciding whether they can go beyond such encouragement.

The other complexity is the involvement of faith-based organizations in many federally funded programs, delivering a wide range of services to persons, families, and communities. A requirement to serve everyone who is eligible for help; that’s not only not a problem for most of these organizations but for their own commitment. Yet the problem of a clash of standards or views of how best to serve is likely in some federal programs — in particular, in those dealing specifically with marriage and family. The federal government funds a range of programs designed to strengthen marriages. Will all organizations that participate in such programs in the future be required to accept the view that all legal marriages are exactly the same, or will the government cultivate a variety of providers to accommodate the diverse convictions of the public and to respect the religious freedom of faith-based groups committed to one man/one woman marriage?

Abstinence education programs sometimes touch on marriage. To be eligible to offer such programs, will organizations have to swear they will teach what Justice Kennedy believes about marriage rather than what their own holy scriptures teach? Will the marriage equality view be required of all organizations involved in adoptions and foster-care services, if federal dollars are involved? What will be the service requirement in residential programs — emergency shelter for families, housing for married students?

IRFA and other advocates for the religious freedom of faith-based service organizations have raised such issues with the Obama administration, and fortunately the administration has decided that these questions require specific attention from officials involved in the programs and from the Department of Justice. That’s no guarantee that the final policy will be acceptable to all faith-based organizations, but it is an important start.