In the court case United States v. Windsor, problems provoked regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The DOMA was a United States federal law that prohibited homosexual marriage while defining a marriage as a relationship between a male and a female. This act was soon ruled unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were happily married in Ontario, Canada (2007) until Thea Spyer died in 2009, leaving behind all their property for Edith. Similarly to what usually happens after a spouse dies, Windsor believed that she would be able to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses; however, since Windsor and Spyer had a homosexual marriage, Windsor was not considered Spyer’s
…show more content…
Windsor decided to bring this dispute to court, as she believed the way she was treated was unconstitutional and she had the right to be treated equally because of the legal laws in New York State. After passing through the New York State District Court and the Appeals Court, the courts recognized that by not considering Windsor, Spyer’s spouse, it was unconstitutional and did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection to those who are legally married under the laws of their state. However, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group believed that since homosexuals were never a protected class in United States history, traditional marriage is the only marriage that should be considered legal. As the opposing view of the courts, they believed that same sex marriage laws should undergo negligible scrutiny under a rational basis test and the DOMA was created as an attempt to avoid the centralized meaning of marriage from shifting over time. Following the ruling that the DOMA was unconstitutional in the previous two court cases, The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the court case, and because of such a tangible incongruity between the opposing sides, the Supreme Court decided to hear the
Windsor decided to bring this dispute to court, as she believed the way she was treated was unconstitutional and she had the right to be treated equally because of the legal laws in New York State. After passing through the New York State District Court and the Appeals Court, the courts recognized that by not considering Windsor, Spyer’s spouse, it was unconstitutional and did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection to those who are legally married under the laws of their state. However, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group believed that since homosexuals were never a protected class in United States history, traditional marriage is the only marriage that should be considered legal. As the opposing view of the courts, they believed that same sex marriage laws should undergo negligible scrutiny under a rational basis test and the DOMA was created as an attempt to avoid the centralized meaning of marriage from shifting over time. Following the ruling that the DOMA was unconstitutional in the previous two court cases, The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the court case, and because of such a tangible incongruity between the opposing sides, the Supreme Court decided to hear the