Marriage Act ( Doma ) Essay

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights

In a very real sense, it is reasonable to argue that the government should have no say at all in the processes of marriage, or decide which adults may or may not legally marry. State and federal governments play a role, of course, in that marriage is a civil union, and provides benefits and legal protections for the couple. Historically, marriage serves the interests of the society by promoting stability and future generations of citizens, and governments usually act in ways to promote this very vital element. At the same time, it is highly questionable whether this governmental authority should have any voice in who chooses to marry, provided those involved are adults and wish to do so. This is in fact, at the heart of the same-sex

As the numbers of gay couples have risen exuberantly in the last two decades, they no doubt

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

This act was passed to define and protect the institution of marriage which is supposed to be “between a man and a woman”. As a tactic, the state of Vermont promoted same sex marriages by labeling them as “civil unions” (Schowengerdt, 2002). The state of Vermont felt civil unions would provide gays and lesbians with the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples (Stewart, 2004). In 1998, Hawaii’s stated legislation implemented the DOMA amendment that altered the state’s constitution and rejected same sex marriages (Schowengerdt, 2002). Between 1995 and 2000, 28 states passed laws preventing the recognition of same sex marriages (Schowengert, 2002). The purpose of the DOMA was to prevent gays and lesbians from “exporting same sex marriages to other states” (Finnis, 1997). A Florida Federal Judge denied two women recognition of their marriage which took place in Massachusetts. As a result of this denial, attemtps were made to force other states and the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in states where it is legal (Stewart, 2003).

Section 2 of DOMA declares that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

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 U.S. v. Windsor a same-sex couple (Windsor and Spyer) who met in 1963 and had been dating ever since registered as domestic partners in 1993 in New York. Worried about Spyer’s failing health they went to Canada to get married in 2007. In 2009 Spyer died and left everything to Windsor. At the time DOMA denied federal recognition to same-sex spouses, Windsor did not qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation “any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse.” 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a).

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

This case note will examine the 1967 landmark Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia. The Loving v. Virginia case touched on constitutional principles including equality, federalism, and liberty. Just over 30 years ago, it was a crime for interracial couples in Virginia to marry, or to live as husband and wife. Prior to the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, many states had laws that banned the intermarriage of whites with black or other minorities. The United States has a long history of the existence of anti-miscegenation laws that forbid interracial marriage. The case presents the

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the plaintiffs, including fourteen same-sex couples, argued for their marriages performed legally in another state to be recognized in their state of residence. They were asking that the privileges and responsibilities of marriage be granted to them as they would to any opposite-sex couple. The plaintiffs gave examples of how unequal protection negatively affects them to convince the judges that they should have their marriage recognized. Obergefell was denied being included in his spouse’s death record. DeBoer was disallowed adoption with her spouse, which could cause issues should one of the children become sick or one of the parents die.

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.

On June 26, 2013, The United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enabling same-sex couples legally married under state law to be recognized for the purpose and benefit of federal law. Section 3 of DOMA previously defined marriage as the legal union of two persons of the opposite sex. This definition was challenged in several court cases for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edith Windsor in U.S. v. Windsor, declaring DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional and allowing same-sex couples to be recognized as married for federal purposes. This opens up several opportunities within federal income tax and estate and gift tax. Some of these benefits include higher standard deductions and gain exclusion; opportunity to lower tax bracket through combining incomes; and entitlement to the marital deduction, gift splitting, and portability of DSUE. Marriage also results in tax disadvantages such as the marriage penalty, joint and several liability, and refund offsetting. Taxpayers and tax preparers should be aware of the new planning opportunities available to married same-sex couples,

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,

Gay marriage is a very talked about topic in are country that shouldn’t be ignored. I believe men and women should be able to love freely and not be shamed by it. Marriage is a great factor in the United States. To some people it’s what we live for; is to get married and start a family. To not give everyone the same opportunity to have a happy marriage and family is unlike us. This problem is bringing a lot of hate, the same hate that was used in racial discrimination so why not give gays equal rights like everyone else. Andrew Sullivan wrote a article that shares his experiences of coming out and being accepted. When puberty hit he started to realize he wasn’t the same. He knew that his marriage is not going to be the same as his