The Same-Sex Marriages Legislation
Introduction
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 when same-sex marriage was legal in Canada. Before Spyer passed away, the pair had been legally married in New York (McFadden, 2017). Nevertheless, the Internal Revenue Service refused Windsor’s usage of a spousal land levy exclusion on the argument that, in defense of the Marriage Act (DOMA), the national government did not identify same-sex marriages for significant benefits (Soto, 2019).
The Supreme Court could not decide the constitutionality of DOMA. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) in the Household of Legislatures had taken up the defense of DOMA in light of the Obama Administration’s failure to do so (BLAG v. Gill, n.d.). The following paper is going to present a detailed analysis of the remunerations associated with marriage and the consequent obstacles experienced by same-sex partners advocating for the right to marry and achieve benefits that can be accessed by heterosexual couples.
Facts
The primary idea is that there is no well-defined legal standard for same-sex marriages. McFadden (2017) mentioned federal benefits as one of the fundamental issues that have not been resolved by the US government yet. On the other hand, there is evidence provided by Soto (2019), who suggested that sexual orientation could not be associated with one’s eligibility for benefits. Case outcomes may have far-reaching implications for the federal government’s ability to define marriage and enforce its laws and the identities of those who serve in that capacity (United States v. Windsor, n.d.). Due to this decision, Ms. Windsor can save a significant amount on her taxes, and other same-sex couples married under state law may qualify for federal benefits.
According to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (n.d.), only a legal union between couples can benefit from grants. In the same vein, it specifies that a spouse must be of the same sex as the individual marrying (Redman, 2018). Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer met for the first time in New York City in 1963. Because of their long-term commitment to one another, they decided to register as local allies, and the first time that this option was made available there (Soto, 2019). In light of Spyer’s chronic pain from MS and a heart problem, the couple tied the knot in Canada in 2007. Because of Spyer’s sudden death in February 2009, Windsor is now the sole heir to her estate. Although New York legally recognized their marriage, federal law prevented Windsor from deducting spousal support from Spyer’s inheritance.
When a spouse inherits property after their partner dies, this provision allows for a deduction of this kind. However, Section 3 of DOMA specifies that marital and partner only apply to lawful partnerships between one male and one female for federal law. Due to this meaning, the federal government levied $363,053 on Spyer’s fortune when she bequeathed it to Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).). Windsor could not pay any estate levies if their marriage were legally recognizable because his new wife would have been exempt from paying them. Windsor filed this complaint to have the federal estate tax ultimately refunded to him and to declare that Section 3 of the Guard of Matrimonial Act is illegal as a defilement of his rights under the Fifth Modification’s promise of equivalent protection.
Discussion
As part of its push for increased examination of laws that entails sexual discrimination, the Obama administration argued that Section 3, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, is illegal under the equal protection provision (Redman, 2018). Because the LGBT community is not an endangered class, BLAG claims, the Court must use the lowermost level of inspection, typical base appraisal. Given that both sides acknowledge the Supreme Court’s authority, the Court selected amicus curiae to present arguments in favor of the Court’s dismissal. The amicus curiae contend that there is no Article 3 dispute since any damage to the Legislature due to the right and breaching on the parting of authorities.
Proponents of DOMA argue that the bill will reduce federal spending by preventing the government from making payments to same-sex couples through tax breaks or Social Security. BLAG argues that recognizing same-sex marriages would negatively impact the federal budget, making it clear that preserving DOMA is the government’s finest monetary welfare (A Look at Economic Impact if Court Overturns DOMA | Here & Now, 2013). To BLAG, the economic consequences of repealing DOMA are cause for concern despite the impossibility of estimating their severity precisely.
DOMA fulfills a federal purpose by protecting marriage and encouraging responsible parenthood. According to proponents of the Protection of Matrimonial Act, marriage bonds men and women so that their youngsters might have both mothers and fathers (Defense of Marriage Act, n.d.). BLAG argues that the intrinsic bond between marriage and offspring is at the center of civilization’s attention in adaptable marriage. People who think DOMA is a harmful social policy say that all Americans should have the same opportunities as everyone else, irrespective of their desired location.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ finding will stand if the Supreme Court decides it lacks authority since the Obama government has chosen not to protect DOMA. The Second Circuit states that DOMA would be illegal and unenforceable (United States v. Windsor, n.d.). It will continue to be in effect in unconstitutional circuits, so a future case can appeal to the Supreme Court if it has jurisdiction over the matter.
Analysis
Section 3 of DOMA is challengeable in Court, with the Obama administration claiming its unconstitutionality on behalf of the United States. It supports discriminating inspection, which calls for an extra thorough explanation of legislation based on questionable categories like race (Defense of Marriage Act, n.d.). The States contend that the government is responsible for a higher standard when justifying any classification based on a person’s sexual orientation.
The United States and Windsor claim that sexual orientation classifications are subject to strict scrutiny because they meet all four criteria the Court has established for such review (Soto, 2019). The United States notes a long history of discrimination against the gay and lesbian community. The government has no right to use sexual orientation as a basis for any classification because it has no bearing on an individual’s capacity to perform or contribute to society. According to the existing evidence, the Court should evaluate DOMA using the rational basis standard (BLAG v. Gill, n. d.). According to the case, three tiers of judicial examination can be applied to equal protection issues.
The highest tier, heightened scrutiny, needs the administration to give a compelling reason for a specific categorization in a statute. The Supreme Court has historically applied what appears to be rational basis review when deciding cases where sexual orientation applies as a categorization but has never formally stated that standard.
A key argument by BLAG is that the lower Court erred in subjecting DOMA to stricter scrutiny than its subjects initially did. According to BLAG, none of the four criteria for questionable class treatment applies here. Instead, BLAG thinks that gays and lesbians have political influence thanks to the backing they have received from the White House, the Vice President, and the Democratic Party on same-sex marriage. Furthermore, there has been a remarkable rise in public support for same-sex marriage, with 53% of Americans in favor of it (Soto, 2019). This undermines the notion that closer investigation is warranted. BLAG further points out that the Supreme Court has not added to the concise list of groups that activate complex stages of examination in over 40 years, showing that the Court is wary of doing so.
Conclusion
Based on the existing findings, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court remains one of the core decision-makers in relation to Section 3 of DOMA and its imminent future. Evidence was identified suggesting that the right to equal protection could be violated through the interface of unlawful actions taken by the Supreme Court. The recognition of same-sex marriages is yet to be viewed through the prism of federal benefits that can be accessed by non-heterosexual couples. Overall, there are numerous sources of evidence, including the court case, that focus on the strict need for more equality and understanding. The Supreme Court should be perceived as the agency responsible for reiterating the constitutional power of Section 3 of DOMA.
References
BLAG v. Gill. (n.d.). SCOTUSblog. Web.
Defense of Marriage Act. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Web.
McFadden, R. D. (2017). Edith Windsor, Whose Same-Sex Marriage Fight Led to Landmark Ruling, Dies at 88. The New York Times. Web.
Redman, S. M. (2018). Effects of same-sex legislation on attitudes toward homosexuality. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 628-641. Web.
Soto, E. O. (2019). Queering the gay agenda: The politics of queer legal advocacy organizations after United States v. Windsor. Honor Senior Thesis. California State University. Web.
United States v. Windsor. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Web.