The Case Of US Vs. Windsor

The case dealt with Jeff Quon, a police sergeant at the Ontario Police Department who was issued a pager in October of 2001 because of his work on the the department 's SWAT Team. Quon allegedly went over his allotted number of text messages on his department issued pager a repeated number of times, which resulted in an additional fee that Quon paid. The department took notice of the high number of messages and decided to look into the matter to see if the limit was set too low and to make sure the messages being sent on the company pagers were work related. During their review of the transcripts they found many personal messages, which resulted in Quon being reprimanded by the department. Quon felt the actions of his workplace were unfair on the basis of the Fourth Amendment and brought action against the city. It is important to note that before the pagers were issued to employees, a Computer Policy was announced for every employee that stated the department “reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice [and] users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources”. The trial judge originally believed that Quon was right to expect the messages he sent using the pager owned by his workplace were going to be kept private. However, the judge eventually determined at the trial that the police department

Granting certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed. The State of New York recognized Spyer’s and Windsor’s Canadian marriage as valid. As such, DOMA “[sought] to injure the very class New York [sought] to protect” and violated Due Process and Equal Protection principles. The Court reiterated that “‘a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group’ cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.”

The Constitution of the United States does not define what marriage is, thus supporters of this act believe that each state should have the choice whether to recognize marriage between same-sex couples. Furthermore, in the tenth amendment it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved

The executive branch agreed upon the DOMA being unconstitutional about how they took this situation of same-sex partnership & spouses. Although the Court has considered whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it is important to certify the federal laws to other states on same-sex spouses as the constitutional decisions of the citizens of the United States have, relating to our civil

I think that the Loving cases was more about limiting the power of the state, when it came to regulating marriage. Then in the Windsor case I think it was about establishing that where state statute merge into the federal statutes. In the Windsor cases, Ms. Windsor and her partner where married in Canada and lived in New York. New York recognized their marriage. However, when Windsor’s partner died and left her money the federal government to 300, 00 plus taxes out of the estate. This happened because though the marriage was recognized by New York, it did not fall in line with DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). DOMA defines marriage in federal law as ‘the union of one man and one woman.’ What I gathered from listening to the case was that if the state recognizes the

Proposition 8 was placed on a ballot in California which made same- sex marriage illegal, and was also deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Once the elected officials of California chose not to defend Proposition 8 once it was deemed unconstitutional the case should have been dismissed, and the petitioners shouldn’t have been allowed standing for appeal. DOMA was purposed that if States recognized same- sex marriages they were to be classified as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. The definition of marriage between a man and a woman is a religious ideology. To deny a person their right as a citizen of the United States of America to marry whomever they choose is illegal, and the Courts have agreed. Since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the decision in the Loving v. Virginia (1958) which deemed the laws of banning interracial marriages unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Justice Earl Warren noted “Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, the person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.” This has opened up many discussions that because the ban of interracial marriages was deemed unconstitutional the laws that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a gendered based classification. Restricting marriage on the foundation of a person’s gender is just as unconstitutional as laws restricting marriage on the basis of a person’s

The United States Constitution protects certain liberties in the Bill of Rights and rights deemed “fundamental” that are “traditionally protected by our society.” (Michael H. v. Gerald D.). The liberty at issue in this case is the right to marry, which has been deemed fundamental by this Court in Loving v. Virginia, where we stated that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Loving v. Virginia). The petitioners in the case at bar seek that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages be equal to traditional, opposite-sex couples.

As a general rule, constitutional law examination differs depending on the nature of the right that is being asserted in a case. In the Constitution people have various rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Other rights in the Constitution are not presented in the Constitution, but they are arguably stated within its context. In this paper I will agree that the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges was right in affirming the equal rights of same-sex couples based on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Court’s ruling in this case has an effect on the legal rights of children of same-sex couples, the rights of people who identify as gay, and the states’ sovereign right to enact legislation that defines

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).

United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her at the Virginia Tech University. She complained to the school staff faculty members about her tragic incident. After making several reproaches to the school and being ignored she decided to withdraw, especially after uncovering in a newspaper that Morrison would be returning to campus in the fall of 1995. Proceeding the events she then filed a lawsuit under Brzonkala v Morrison in which talks about the

There have been many questions and concerns leading to court cases regarding federalism and state rights. Most frequently the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments interpretation plays a pivotal role in these cases. The tenth amendments are powers reserved for the states that are not expressed in the Constitution. The eleventh amendment protects states from getting sued by citizens. The cases Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), Nevada v Hibbs and Alden v Maine will showcase if the Supreme Court has been consistent when dealing with federalism and states rights.

Section 7 (Legal Rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” This section benefits all Canadians including non-citizens by ensuring that individuals receive the three main types of protection: life, liberty, and security. The right to live is the most fundamental right given to an individual. The right to liberty assures that unless individuals are imprisoned due to justice matters, they should not be subject to punishment. Lastly, the right to security allows individuals to have control over their body and its health, both physically and mentally.

Unlike gender, race, age, religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation anti-discrimination still vary by state. Until 2009, a 1969 federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, or ethnicity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. In 2013, in United States v Windsor, The Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating that it violated the equal protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-to-4 decision by Justice Kennedy, The Court stated, “Careful consideration” had to be given to “discriminations of unusual character.” On June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriage throughout out the United States. This case actually made Missouri's Constitution null and void, because Missouri's Constitution directly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, discriminating against same-sex

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.

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