The US Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

Edie Windsor

After months of deliberation, the US Supreme Court justices have finally passed their judgement in favor of all legally married gays and lesbians in the various US states where gay marriage is legal, including here in Washington State. The decision says that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional for denying federal benefits to married gays and lesbians.

Some people are already going off in religious rants against the ruling of the court, saying it condones gays and will lead to more states approving gay marriage. And what is so bad in that? I want to look at this from a human and personal angle. Often I hear, I am not homophobic, I have gay friends!

OK, consider that your gay friend wants to get married, why can't she? Consider that your married gay friend does not have all the rights you have as a married person, is that fair? Consider that Edie Windsor is your gay friend, how would you rule in this her case? Do I hear you ask who she is?

83-year-old Edie Windsor, a lesbian, was engaged to her wife, Thea, for more than 40 years, waiting for the chance to legally wed, that never came in their state. In 2007, as Thea’s multiple sclerosis worsened, the couple decided to wait no more to make it official. They were married that same year in Canada.

When Thea died in 2009, Edie was forced to pay more than $600,000 in state and federal estate taxes, because the government did not recognize her marriage as valid. If Thea had been a man, Edie would not have had to pay those taxes. So she took the United States to Court and finally the case came to the Supreme Court this year. You can read more about Edie and her case HERE.

At this point, I am glad Edie Windsor got a favorable ruling.

On a national scale however, I know the after shock and tremors of the judgement will be felt for months and years to come. According to USAToday;

The decision gives the high court's blessing, at least in part, to a gay-marriage movement that has gained momentum in the past decade and now stands on the threshold of full equality. The ruling represents a major step forward for marriage equality and a setback for defenders of traditional marriage between only men and women. But 36 states still ban same-sex marriage, and the high court's ruling doesn't affect them.

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the federal law unconstitutionally denied equal treatment to gay and lesbian couples. "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled of recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty," Kennedy wrote.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment," Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy was careful to say that the court's conclusion about the Defense of Marriage Act was "confined to those lawful marriages" performed in states that already recognize same-sex marriage.

Kennedy was joined by the court's four more liberal justices. The court's conservative justices dissented.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a scathing dissent, said the court's decision was "jaw-dropping," and predicted that it could help clear the path for same-sex marriage nationwide. "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition," he wrote.

The decision was greeted with celebration among gay rights advocates and dread by religious and social conservatives. It also created an instant celebrity in 83-year-old Edie Windsor, the lesbian widow who challenged the law based on a six-figure estate tax bill that a heterosexual spouse would not have received.

The Defense of Marriage Act has two main sections, only one of which — defining marriage in federal laws as between a man and a woman — was contested. Because of it, benefits and programs enjoyed by opposite-sex couples aren't available to gays and lesbians under federal employment, health, tax and other laws. The other provision shields states from having to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Let the debates continue, I say. We all stand to learn and benefit from such open and frank discussions.