United States v. Windsor (2013)
Same-sex marriage has been subject to debate in the US, and other parts of the world for a period close to two decades. In ancient society, same-sex marriage was considered a taboo and the convicts would be subjected to severe punishment. However, modern society is seemingly taking a different twist, with the social fabric the aspect at stake. In 2007, two women, Edith Windsor, and Thea Spyer married in Canada. The state of New York recognized this marriage. The two women were the residents of New York who had also registered as domestic partners when the New York City legalized same-sex marriage in 1993. In 2009, Spyer died and left her entire estate to Windsor.
Windsor attempted to claim the federal state tax exemption for the surviving spouse but was barred under section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines the “marriage” and “spouse” by amending the Dictionary Act to exclude same-sex couples. Windsor paid the state taxes but later requested for a refund from the Inland Revenue Service, and was denied. The Department of Justice did not defend section 3 of DOMA either, and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG) intervened. There is the need to spread the legal array of light on the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA regarding same-sex marriages, an analysis of United States vs. Windsor case of 2013 with regards to the individual rights versus the common good.
The Individual Rights
The protection of the individual rights under section 3 of the DOMA is much pegged on the equal protection principles. The Supreme Court ruling declared section 3 of the DOMA to be unconstitutional since it amounts to the deprivation of the equal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. Some arguments not opined to section 3 of the DOMA state that every person is entitled to celebrate their love like every person does (Archibald, 695). There is also a view that same-sex marriage does not weaken the legality of the marriage.
Nevertheless, section 3 of DOMA only provides the legal framework protecting marriages between one man and one woman. For the protection of the individual rights, the Supreme Court on June 26th ruled section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. This section of the bill had prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages as legal (Carter, 705). All same-sex couples were denied protection from all the federal programs. Such programs included federal student aid, federal employee benefits, family medical leave act, Medicaid and Medicare, military spousal benefits, bankruptcy programs, taxes, and social security. A statement from the Supreme Court case asserted that “DOMA places same-sex couples in an unstable position constitutionally.”
Upon the deliberations on the DOMA case, much of the federal DOMA bills remain intact as opposed to the media reports that DOMA is “dead” after the Supreme Court ruling. Coincidentally, the ruling came exactly ten years after the High Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized the private, sexual behavior by adults in the US (Carter, 705). The United States v. Windsor of 2013 provided the legal protection of the same gender marriages after Edith Windsor launched the lawsuit (Tritt, 113). Because of DOMA, the federal government could not consider Edith Windsor and Spyer as couples. They were merely considered as roommates without any intimate relationship.
According to the New York state inheritance tax, if Edith had been married to a man, she would pay nothing as an inheritance tax. But because she was married to Spyer who passed on, the Inland Revenue Service slapped her with a total of about $363,000 tax inheritance. The individual rights to Windsor had been violated. The Supreme Court of the US upheld the petition filed by Windsor, and she was to receive a refund of about $ 638,000 (Dorocak, 263). The court further asserted that “DOMA frustrates New York’s objective by writing inequality in the entire US.” As stated earlier, the US government declined to give the refund.
Section 3 of the DOMA for the Common Good
Every government is tasked with the protection of the social fabric using the underlying legal requirements provided in its constitution. For the same reasons, the case of the United States v. Windsor could not gain legal backup from section 3 of DOMA (Dorocak, 263). As much as Windsor deserved to be refunded by the federal government, we also have to look into the general aspect of the social view towards such cases. Indeed, such legal deliberations as pronounced by the Supreme Court would trigger further social problems as far as same-sex marriages are concerned. Perhaps, it was by coincidence that the Supreme Court ruling came two years earlier than the ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, a ruling that legalized gay marriage across the entire US (Hardy, 309). To date, the US is still struggling with the legal frameworks of safeguarding same-sex marriages. The society in the US is “rotting” in patches following the Supreme Court deliberation on the Windsor case. The overturn of the critical sections of DOMA was a surprising incidence.
The Supreme Courts case was presided over by ten judges. Five judges were of the majority opinion while the other four dissented (Hardy, 309). Nevertheless, the dissenting judges did not agree in one accord with each other’s opinion but broadly insisted, and agreed that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case on merits that DOMA was constitutional despite the court appointing an amicus curiae to argue the opposite position (Archibald, 695). In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito stated that:
“[S]ame-sex marriages present emotional and important public question. The constitution does not guarantee the right to same-sex marriage. Indeed, the issue has no constitutional basis (Dorocak, 263).”
Even after the deliberations of Justice Alito, the opponents of same-sex marriage have anchored their arguments on the theological purpose of creation and procreation. The legal provisions of marriage are that it is a legally, and socially sanctioned act of union only between a man and a woman regulated by laws, customs, rules, and beliefs.
Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling on the United States v. Windsor case, legal activists, have called for the protection of the future generation of America. Let’s deviate a little from the legal arguments and focus on some social arguments (Dorocak, 263). The anti-gay activists in the US have implied that children sired of straight parents are better than the gay or lesbian adopted children. Biologically, we understand that same-sex marriages are not entitled to childbearing. They thus have to adopt children (Hardy, 311). Many laws in the constitution of the US touching on marriage were enacted and precisely enforced to encourage and its fulfillment in entirety. From the aspect of entire fulfillment, the opponents of the Supreme Court ruling that repealed section 3 of DOMA argue that same-sex marriage would not meet the “entirety” factor. The common good and the goal of marriage as provided in section 3 of DOMA would thus not be met.
Legal matters concerning social and moral decisions are subject to arguments, which bring about constitutional amendments (Dorocak, 263). The fact that the Supreme Court ruling that repealed section 3 of the DOMA is earning different legal twists is in itself legally arguable. The traditional authorities enshrined in the constitution of the United States is thus infringed by the Supreme Court case (Tritt, 113). Perhaps that is what informed the dissecting decisions from the other four judges. For the common good of the US citizens, the Supreme Court did not have the authority to repeal a section of DOMA in the case of United States v. Windsor.
Conclusion
The constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA can today be borrowed from the Supreme Court ruling that struck it down in 2013. The United States was a legal case decided on June 26th using the repealed section 3. On that deliberation, Windsor was supposed to be refunded $638,000, but the federal government declined. In this case, the personal rights of Windsor were violated. Additionally, the ruling also stated that section 3 of DOMA undermined both public and private significance of the state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. The same-sex couples were also barred from receiving vital government services under section 3 of DOMA. Nevertheless, the idea to upset some of the provisions of DOMA was also received by harsh critics. The dissenting judges on the case such as Justice Alito mentioned that the Supreme Court lacked the authority to deliberate on such a crucial social issue.
Works cited
Archibald, Catherine Jean. “Is Full Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples Next-The Immediate and Future Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision in the United States v. Windsor.” Val. UL Rev. 48 (2013): 695.
Carter, W. Burlette. “The Federal Law of Marriage: Deference, Deviation, and DOMA.” Am. UJ Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 21 (2012): 705.
Dorocak, John R. “Is the Constitution Only Libertarian and Not Socially Conservative-US v. Windsor and the Unconstitutionality of DOMA’s Definition of Marriage to Exclude Same- Sex Couples-Requiem for a Heavyweight.” Geo. Mason UCRLJ 24 (2013): 263.
Hardy, Martha E. “Marriage equality: Same-sex marriage in the United States.” College & Research Libraries News 74.6 (2013): 304-314.
Tritt, Lee-Ford. “United States v. Windsor: The Marital Deduction That Changed Marriage.” ACTEC LJ 42 (2016): 113.