In 2009, Thea Clara Spyer passed away leaving behind her estate to her domestic partner, Edith Windsor. The couple wed in 2007 in Canada and as residents of New York, their marriage was recognized by the state. However, the IRS denied Windsor a spousal deduction under federal law citing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA.) DOMA’s section 3 refers to marriage only as the legal union between one man and one woman.Windsor chose to challenge DOMA, believing same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection and due process.
The U.S. Constitution notes that the fourteenth amendment “prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws.” The Fifth Amendment states "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, …show more content…
President Barack Obama and the attorney general eventually decided to retract their defense of DOMA’s Section 3.People who opposed DOMA used the law and courts as a political resource.
The law did not constrain the majority’s decision(5-4), the court was in a position where they could “remedy” injustices. The majority asserted that DOMA’s section 3 was unconstitutional; Justice Kennedy delivered the decision, declaring that DOMA denies dignity to many same-sex couples, it sets them apart, making them a targeted group, violating their rights to due process and equal protection.
Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas filed dissenting opinions. Justice Scalia declared that the majority is making the issue of same-sex marriage black and white. He believed the majority should let the public decide what defines marriage. Justice Alito took a similar stance, stating that the political branch of government should have resolved the issue of same-sex marriage instead of allowing the courts to do so. Justice Roberts followed with a similar opinion, saying that he did not believe the courts had jurisdiction to decide whether or not states could determine what defined marriage. He also added that it was not DOMA’s intention to single out a group of people. Justice Thomas along with Justice Alito agreed that the constitution does not speak on same-sex marriage, thus making same-sex marriage something the constitution cannot
The U.S. Constitution notes that the fourteenth amendment “prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws.” The Fifth Amendment states "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, …show more content…
President Barack Obama and the attorney general eventually decided to retract their defense of DOMA’s Section 3.People who opposed DOMA used the law and courts as a political resource.
The law did not constrain the majority’s decision(5-4), the court was in a position where they could “remedy” injustices. The majority asserted that DOMA’s section 3 was unconstitutional; Justice Kennedy delivered the decision, declaring that DOMA denies dignity to many same-sex couples, it sets them apart, making them a targeted group, violating their rights to due process and equal protection.
Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas filed dissenting opinions. Justice Scalia declared that the majority is making the issue of same-sex marriage black and white. He believed the majority should let the public decide what defines marriage. Justice Alito took a similar stance, stating that the political branch of government should have resolved the issue of same-sex marriage instead of allowing the courts to do so. Justice Roberts followed with a similar opinion, saying that he did not believe the courts had jurisdiction to decide whether or not states could determine what defined marriage. He also added that it was not DOMA’s intention to single out a group of people. Justice Thomas along with Justice Alito agreed that the constitution does not speak on same-sex marriage, thus making same-sex marriage something the constitution cannot