E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Andy Kropa / Getty Images
Edie Windsor
A federal law that leaves hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples without any recognition of their marriage violates the Constitution, lawyers for a woman whose wife’s death left her unprotected from more than $350,000 in estate taxes said in a legal brief Tuesday, one month before the Supreme Court hears her case.
The landmark case is one of two the court will hear in March about the battle over whether same-sex couples can legally wed, and if they do, whether they can receive spousal benefits and get the same rights that heterosexual couples currently enjoy.
The former is a legal fight over California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, and the latter centers on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars recognition of same-sex marriage at the federal level.
Of a few cases brought to the high court challenging DOMA, the justices chose to hear the one brought by Edie Windsor, whose wife, Thea Spyer, died in 2009. The New York couple married in 2007 in Canada, though they were together for 44 years before Spyer died.
Spyer left her estate to Windsor. As a married heterosexual couple there would have been no estate tax. But Windsor was left with a federal tax bill of $363,000 since the couple’s marriage was not recognized by the U.S. government.
The lawyers’ brief filed Tuesday by Windsor’s lawyers argues that DOMA's Section 3, which defines marriage at the federal level, “violates the Constitution because it treats married gay couples differently than married straight couples” for “no logical reason,” the American Civil Liberties Union, part of Windsor's legal team, said in a summary of the brief.
Gays and lesbians, who have already endured a long history of discrimination, the ACLU said, were subjected to further discrimination from DOMA, which they noted Congress passed in 1996 “based on fear of and stereotypes about gay people, rather than any legitimate government purpose.”
“But the Constitution doesn’t permit the government to pass a law just to disadvantage a politically unpopular group of people,” the group added.
DOMA affects more than 1,100 provisions of federal laws, denying gay couples the right to file joint taxes, the protections of the Family Medical and Leave Act, and blocks surviving spouses from accessing veterans’ benefits, among other things, Windsor’s lawyers said.
“DOMA excludes married couples who are gay from all of the rights, privileges and obligations that the federal government otherwise affords married couples,” her lawyers’ brief said.
Two lower courts have agreed with Windsor and her attorneys. Other lower courts that reviewed DOMA challenges elsewhere, such as in Boston, reached similar findings.
The Obama administration filed a brief last Friday in the case with the Supreme Court asking it to throw out Section 3, which it had already stopped defending.
The administration also mentioned California's Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states as evidence that anti-gay discrimination remained a major problem.
The appeal of the lower courts’ decision was brought by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a congressional group made of three Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, and two Democrats.
In its brief, filed in late January, the group argued to let the debate over same-sex marriage continue to play out as it has been through votes in many states and public debate, saying “gays and lesbians have substantial political power, and that power is growing. Victories at the ballot box that would have been unthinkable a decade ago have become routine,” it said, apparently referring to wins for same-sex marriage in four states last November.
“There is absolutely no reason to think that gays and lesbians are shut out of the political process to a degree that would justify judicial intervention on an issue as divisive and fastmoving as same-sex marriage,” the group said, as it urged the court not to step in.
“Indeed, the democratic process has substantial advantages over constitutionalizing this issue. Same-sex marriage is being actively debated in legislatures, in the press, and at every level of government and society across the country. That is how it should be,” the group added.
The court will hear on DOMA from both sides on March 27, one day after Proposition 8 supporters and opponents go before the justices.
Related:
Once 'inconceivable,' Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples
Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue
Leave a Comment:
And same sex marriage is a sin ,immoral and nasty...
Really.... hundreds of thousands?
Looks like you passed 3rd grade cipherin'
Yes, hundreds of thousands. Current U.S. population is around 313,914,040. Difficult to say exactly what percentage of the population is homosexual or bisexual, but lower end estimates usually seem to be around 3.5%. Assuming I've done my math correctly, 3.5% of 313,914,040 is 10,986,991(and one tenth). So yes, it is very reasonable to assume that there are hundreds of thousands of gay couples, seeing as there are well over ten million gay and bisexual Americans at present.
Almost 11 million if your math is correct. Staggering. And I've heard estimates that as much as 7% of the US population identifies as gay, lesbian or bisexual (I have no idea what that number is based on). Guess thats why its such a hotly contested issue.
Wow, it started out at 1.5% and now you've boosted it to 7. Won't be long until we're all queer.
Duh. Anybody with a fourth grade understanding of civics could have told you that DOMA was unconstitutional.
No doubt. As the article stated, there is no logical reason for DoMA. It's purpose seems to be to legally discriminate against a group because of another groups religious beliefs. It doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that
Problem is, the Supremes don't have fourth grade educations, they have J.D.s.
Regardless of the constitutionality of DoMA, what is the legality of their marriage? Usually the U.S. does not recognize marriages in other countries except in certain situations (US territories, military bases, US consulates, etc). To skirt the existing US laws and skip to another country because they have different laws doesn't legalize the action when they get back in the US.
I hope they legalize gay marriage so I don't have to hear about it any more. Maybe people can focus on the economy then.
Congratulations to the gay crowd. It seems like they are going to win this fight.
On the other hand........ my condolences. Marriage is Hell.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Now if Republicans get over the abortion issue they might have a chance to win on critical issues like deficits, education, border security, defending the country and The Constitution.
Remeber the days when the GOP focused more on economic issues and not so much the social ones? Are there any of thise rebulicans left? Since the religious right got involved the whole party seems to be foaming at the mouth.
Bluto, agreed, and wholeheartedly. With 3 marriages behind me, I certainly feel the LGBT community ought to go through the same misery I have.
Throw aside even considering it discrimination based on sexual preference; it's discrimination based on gender itself.
I am a heterosexual woman; I am barred from marrying a woman. Therefore, it does not matter if I'm heterosexual or homosexual; it matters that I'm a woman. Gender discrimination.
Similarly, a heterosexual man cannot marry a man. However, he can marry that woman whom I can't marry. Based on what? The fact that he's a man and I'm not. Gender discrimination.
I can marry that man whom he can't marry. Based on what? The fact that I'm a woman and he's not. Gender discrimination.
Perverted queeeer marriage supporters, enjoy the days left, holding sunscreen when you die won't help any, there is a God, as He's the same one Washington relied on time after time. You won't allow Him into your lives, He showed His love towards you all but you reject Him cause you hate Him. It's a frearful thing to fall into the hand of an angry God. Change you minds and follow Him while you can, else eternal anguish lies ahead. THis is what affirms our position of historical marriage, God created it not you or me.
sam-790083
A traditional or "historic" marriage in Biblical times was a man marrying as many wives as he could afford to support through the process of buying them from their fathers, or closest male relative. Such a marriage was about property consolidation, increase and preservation, not love. Few prospective wives had any say in the matter and the great majority of women were basically sold to the highest bidder as one might sell a piece of property today, because women were chattel property. Love might come to the couple in time, but that was a bonus, neither required nor expected.
Love leading to marriage is a modern idea. Even so, the purpose of marriage remained the same for centuries: Consolidation of property and the right of a man to dispose of it as he wished. Marriage became of interest to the governing authority when it became necessary to create and maintain legal proof of property ownership and inheritance. Proof of legitimate descent was needed and the state-issued marriage licence provided that proof.
Since death and multiple remarriages were common in the earlier years of this country, assuring that only the intended heirs received the property left by a deceased person could become extremely complicated. It was of great importance to the states to ascertain that the correct persons inherited, so they assumed responsibility for maintaining the paper trail that proved ownership and assured that the true heirs received their legal share. It already had information on the location of each parcel of land for tax purposes, and the state-issued marriage licence proved legitimate descent for inheritance purposes. To this day, each state recognizes only those marriages which have been authorized by a secular authority such as itself or another state. Any religious aspect is irrelevant. The recently passed laws permitting a state to refuse to recognize a marriage validly performed in another state are unConstitutional on their face as a direct violation of the "full faith and credit" section of the US Constitution.
Unlike European nations which still maintain the Civil Marriage Contract totally separate from any and all religious rites, all individual US states have created laws which allow religious denominations to incorporate the Civil Marriage Contract into their particular religious marriage rites. This is routinely overlooked by those who claim that marriage is solely a religious rite: It is not. Whether a couple simply signs a Civil Contract at the County Clerk's Office or has a church ceremony, there is a CIVIL contract created, which is the only part of the religious ceremony of interest to the state. During the time that a religious officiator voices the Civil portion of the religious marriage ceremony, he stands in the legal position of a secular officiator marrying the couple under the secular laws of that state.
The current dissention arose because the various religious ceremonies have so carefully incorporated the Civil portion for so long, that church members don't recognize it. However, the religious officiators most assuredly do know, regardless of whatever rhetoric they spout, since each must obtain state permission to conduct CIVIL marriages from the state where the ceremony occurs, for the marriage to be valid under state law. A few small sects refuse to acknowledge the state's interest and omit the Civil portion of the religious ceremony. These marriages are not considered valid by the state, and some church members make a quiet trip to the County Clerk's office to legalize their marriage.
Because the state permits legal contracts between two consenting adults for any legal purpose, regardless of their sexual orientation, due process would prohibit the denial of secular marriage contracts between two consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation. While it remains the absolute right of any religion or denomination to determine who it will permit to marry in its church/equivalent or with its religious rites, no religion or domination has any right to deny secular marriage to any consenting adult.
This is such a clear injustice that this woman had to pay over $300,000.00 in taxes at the death of her legal spouse that it will be very difficult for SCOTUS to rule against her. Money is a language that every American speaks fluently. It's not to difficult to understand for even those that don't believe gays should have the right to marry that this is just wrong. They built their lives together for 44 years for God's sake!
the times they are a changin, and it is great to see the bigots squirm!!!!
Thinker, how did you manage to think up the idea that foreign weddings are not recognized here? My in-laws, who were married in England during WWII, had a different experience. She was allowed to immigrate as the spouse of a citizen. Apparently it helped that her spouse was a man.
"Them's the ones that got on the ferry all by themselves. Ain't that a fact, Josey."
"That's a fact, Boy. And they got themselves a Missouri Boat Ride, didn't they?"