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, or property, without due process of law.” The United States v. Windsor case is consistent with the dynamic court view due to the fact that the law was open to various interpretations. The United States v. Windsor case produced change, socially and politically. When the legislative and executive branch refused to address the issue of same-sex marriage, the judiciary branch was forced to decide whether or not DOMA was constitutional. The right to equal protection is vague and open-ended, there is no clear-cut definition as to whether or not same-sex marriage falls under the fourteenth amendment or the fifth amendment. No matter the case, under the constitution, the state is prohibited from treating those in a heterosexual legal marriage unions differently than those in a homosexual legal union under state or federal law. The law did not matter to the court, because previous precedents which were ruled in opposition were cited, but disregarded. In Williams v. North Carolina, two married adults left North Carolina to Nevada to divorce their spouses and then remarry and return to North Carolina. The state did not allow the couple to file divorces under a different jurisdiction. The court declared that, “Punishment of a person for an act as a crime, when ignorant of the facts making it so, does not involve a denial of due process.” One state cannot veto or disregard another state’s laws. The government does not allow individuals to pick and choose who has jurisdiction over their personal legal matters. A few cases were mentioned in the majority’s decision, including Loving v. Virginia which was a prime example of domestic relations being a matter of the state. In a unanimous decision, Virginia won because the law targeted a specific minority not protected by the law. Hollingsworth v. Perry was mentioned because it set forth precedent in regards to same-sex marriage. It coincided with United States v. Windsor, both cases argued that the fourteenth amendment was violated. In 2013, only a few days apart, Prop 81 and DOMA were found to be unconstitutional. This case was monumental, because the Supreme Court …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, or property, without due process of law.” The United States v. Windsor case is consistent with the dynamic court view due to the fact that the law was open to various interpretations. The United States v. Windsor case produced change, socially and politically. When the legislative and executive branch refused to address the issue of same-sex marriage, the judiciary branch was forced to decide whether or not DOMA was constitutional. The right to equal protection is vague and open-ended, there is no clear-cut definition as to whether or not same-sex marriage falls under the fourteenth amendment or the fifth amendment. No matter the case, under the constitution, the state is prohibited from treating those in a heterosexual legal marriage unions differently than those in a homosexual legal union under state or federal law. The law did not matter to the court, because previous precedents which were ruled in opposition were cited, but disregarded. In Williams v. North Carolina, two married adults left North Carolina to Nevada to divorce their spouses and then remarry and return to North Carolina. The state did not allow the couple to file divorces under a different jurisdiction. The court declared that, “Punishment of a person for an act as a crime, when ignorant of the facts making it so, does not involve a denial of due process.” One state cannot veto or disregard another state’s laws. The government does not allow individuals to pick and choose who has jurisdiction over their personal legal matters. A few cases were mentioned in the majority’s decision, including Loving v. Virginia which was a prime example of domestic relations being a matter of the state. In a unanimous decision, Virginia won because the law targeted a specific minority not protected by the law. Hollingsworth v. Perry was mentioned because it set forth precedent in regards to same-sex marriage. It coincided with United States v. Windsor, both cases argued that the fourteenth amendment was violated. In 2013, only a few days apart, Prop 81 and DOMA were found to be unconstitutional. This case was monumental, because the Supreme Court …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