Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court’s decision finalized the questions of whether states have the right to pass laws treating marriages differently based upon sex, and if states have to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex couples who were married in another state. On a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they cannot be treated differently than opposite sex couples. The court also determined that states have to recognize same-sex marriages the same way they do with opposite-sex. However, the Supreme Court did not create a law about same sex marriage, it just stated that

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) allows for all the states to deny same-sex couples the same rights as their counterparts. It also gives a formal definition to marriage as the union between a man and a woman (Same Sex Marriage, 2017). The bill does violate the Establishment clause in the First Amendment as the government fails to separate church and state. The document does allude to the book of Genesis when it defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman (Text-HR, 2017). However, most of the nation did not approve of same-sex marriages as the time so the President chose to sign the bill that would later be revoked because of court case Obergefell vs Hodges (Same Sex Marriage, 2017).

To start off we should know what the “First Amendment Defense Act” is. The First Amendment Defense Act, in short: “Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” ( first link )

The case was later sent to lower court. Voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Hawaii gain national attention, over 40 states over the next 10 years will pass the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMAs). That defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. On September 21, 1996. President Bill Clinton, signed Federal Defense Of Marriage Act into a law. Which define marriage at a federal level between one man and one woman. This meant there would be no recognition in same sex nor federal protection and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. Vermont was the first state to introduce same sex marriage by enacting a statue without being required to do so by a court decision. December 20, 1999, Vermont court ruled in baker v. Vermont that Vermont constitution entitles same sex couples to the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite sex couples. Between 2005 and Sep. 15, 2010, 14 more states followed suit, bringing the total number of states with constitutional bans on gay marriage to 30. On July 19, 2011, the Obama administration announced that it will be supporting a bill to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act. Another decision on Feburary 23, 2011, Obama instructed the Justice Department ti stop defending Defense of Marriage act, over concerns that it violates the fifth amendment. On May 9, 2012 President Obama was the first sitting

On June 26th, 2013, a Supreme Court case occurred dealing with a same-sex couple, Mrs. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer. It was until they both got married in Ontario, Canada in 2007 and returned to the U.S to a home they had in New York City. Later in their years, Thea had passed away in 2009. Thea left the home estate to Windsor. The estate tax exemption was freely opened to Windsor to claim from the surviving spouses. Although, Windsor was not entitled to the estate tax discharge, because by federal law, was sought as the Defense of Marriage Act, bypasses the definition of a same-sex partner and ‘spouse’. Even after hearing that, Windsor paid her taxes for it, but eventually filed a suit to battle the constitutionality of the endowment. To the situation occurring, the United States District Courts as well as the Court of Appeals has reigned that the federal law to

Hodges, the Supreme Court adjudges the banning of same-sex marriage as violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court clearly establishes that marriage is a fundamental right because marriage is “decisions among the most intimate that an individual can make” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 12) and that individual autonomy should be protected under liberty. The Court also reasons that same-sex couples have the rights to enjoy intimate association that come with marriage. Because the Due Process Clause protects liberty of the citizens and rights to marriage is one of the fundamental liberties, prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the Due Process Clause. For Equal Protection Clause, the Court states that “same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 17). Because it is solely the sexual preference of the same-sex couples that deprives them of these benefits, the Court argues that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

In the case of US v Windsor, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007, where a same-sex marriage were legal and was recognized by New York state law. When in 2009, Thea died. Spyer left her estate to her spouse, and because their marriage was not recognized by federal law. The government imposed a tax of $363,000. If their marriage was recognized, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that, for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was passed in 1996, positions the opinion that for the sake of federal law, the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” shall reference the lawful unions between one man and one woman. Edith Winsor was the widow and solitary executor of the estate of her late spouse Thea Clara Spyer who she had married in a ceremony in Toronto, Canada. The State of New York had recognized their marriage, but, owing to the failure of the federal government to recognize the marriage of the complainant a tax was levied against the estate in the amount of $363,000. The defense for the complainant held that had the marriage been recognized the estate would have qualified for the marital exemption where no taxes would have been imposed against the estate of the deceased.

1929) and her wife Thea Spayer (b. 1931) were legally married in Canada in 2007. Though their union was eventually legally recognized as a same-sex marriage by the State of New York, when Spayer died in 2009, Windsor was unable to receive an inheritance tax exemption reserved for spouses. The IRS denied her the tax exemption because Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) reserves the use of “spouse” for heterosexual unions (1 U.S.C. § 7) and the tax break was reserved for spouses. Windsor filed a case in a District Court in New York in 2010. The DOJ set the review as “heightened scrutiny” and did not seek to defend DOMA Section 3. However, in April 2011, Rep. Paul Clement was allowed to defend DOMA on behalf of the House BLAG (Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group). His defense relied on the premise that Windsor was not legally married to Spayer when she died. However, Judge Barbara Jones decided that the union between Windsor and Spayer, though not legally recognized at the time of Spayer’s death, should be considered a marriage for the purposes of the tax credit. She wrote that the IRS’s refusal to grant the credit violated Windsor’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and ordered the IRS to refund the inheritance tax she paid with interest. Rep. Clement took the case to the Supreme Court, where Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion that the refusal to grant the tax credit was “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth

According to DOMA, “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (sec 3). Until recently 2013, the US Supreme Court finally delivered the verdict that declared section 3 of the DOMA, which is the rejection of right to gay marriage is unconstitutional (Shapiro 208). In “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right” by Nathan Goetting, “The right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967.” Currently, 17 states in the United States have legalized the right to same sex marriage. The realization of DOMA is unconstitutional has further evidenced that gay marriage is one of the civil right that should not be taken away by the government, and it is an inevitable changes that open doors for equality and equity.

For this journal entry, I have decided to review the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in 2009, as a repeal to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which deems that the federal government does not recognize marriages of same sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act was then reintroduced in 2015. The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/29)., amends the Defense of Marriage Act to repeal a provision that prohibited state, territory, possession, or Indian tribe from being required to recognize any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state,

The LGBT community has made new laws all the time to bring about equality. One thing that has been having more equality is same-sex marriage. Since June of 2015 the U.S has said it is legal to have same-sex marriage. Lawmakers for years tried to get same-sex marriage approved. Finally, this happened “Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born” (Confessore, Barbaro). Even though it was finally passed as a law to allow same-sex marriage in America in 2015, many people before that ruling that federal taxes should be used to gain the equality the LGBT move needed

The current major state and federal law that is affecting same-sex marriage is the Defense of Marriage Act , or DOMA as it also called. The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law that allows each state to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same-sex that has been recognized in another state and it also explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." When asking the people that I interviewed what their feelings were towards the Defense of Marriage Act and how it currently affects the issue of same-sex marriage and the interviewees who were for same-sex marriage felt that the law was inherently wrong and the person I interviewed who was opposed to same-sex marriage thought the law was good except for one obvious flaw with it.

Doma or The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 in efforts to stop same-sex marriages in fear of the debate in Hawaii. Doma this labeled gays as immoral, perverse, depraved, and an attack on God’s principles. Congress passed Doma defining marriage as between a women and a man for the first time in history (Stone, 2012). Congress was clearly influenced by religious beliefs in passing Doma, which makes this unconstitutional. The United states government provides many benefits to married couples such as federal employees are entitled to medical coverage, the spouse of an individual covered by Social Security is eligible for retirement and survivor benefits, and married couples who file joint tax returns usually pay considerably lower federal income taxes than individuals who file separately (Stone, 2012 p.1). However, gay couples are refused these rights under law. Gay couples are denied many rights making them second class in the eyes of the government. If the partner of a gay couple was to be hospitalized the other can be denied rights to see them because they are not considered family. If the partner was to pass away the family can come in and make all the decisions even though it might be against the wishes of the deceased. The family can then take everything away from the surviving partner that dedicated their life and love to. The