Ruling puts nationalized gay marriage one step away
June 29, 2013 11:45 PM | 2167 views | 2 2 comments | 81 81 recommendations | email to a friend | print
It is probably quintessentially American that a landmark Supreme Court ruling on a question of morality originated in a dispute over federal taxes.

Perhaps Edith Windsor didn’t intend to upset a cultural and religious tradition that had stood largely unquestioned for hundreds of years. Maybe she only wanted her $363,035 back.

Instead she gave her name, “United States v. Windsor,” to a case that, while it won’t make same-sex marriage legal everywhere, will go a long way toward making such marriages common.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who married in 2007 in Toronto, where gay marriage was legal, lived in New York. When Speyer died shortly thereafter, she left her estate to her partner, who applied for the spousal exemption from estate taxes. The federal government, which did not recognize same-sex unions, denied Windsor her refund.

In 1996, a conservative Congress passed — and Bill Clinton signed —the Defense of Marriage Act (authored by Cobb County’s Rep. Bob Barr), better known by its acronym DOMA, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The act denied to homosexual couples who had been married in states where such unions were legal something like 1,000 federal benefits available to traditionally married couples: joint tax returns, Social Security, health insurance, pension rights, benefits for military couples and immigration protections among them.

The five justices who voted to overturn the law last week spanned the court’s ideological divide. They were stinging in their opinion, writing, “DOMA writes inequality into the entire U.S. Code.”

Swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, “DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

In essence, it violated the Equal Protection Clause, but what the court did not do was legalize same-sex marriage nationally. Same-sex marriage is legal in 12 states (soon to be 13 with the addition of California) and the District of Columbia. And while most other states may legalize it over time, some states (possibly including Georgia) likely never will. But the law is now such that they cannot legally hinder such couples. And as many critics have noted (including Charles Krauthammer on this page on Friday), last week’s ruling puts nationalized gay marriage just one step away.

Comments
(2)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
HE is the only one
|
July 02, 2013
The only person you need to be worried about him loving somebody is if JESUS loves YOU!

Paula Deen has that worry. You don't need it too.
Phillip Maloney
|
July 01, 2013
So it all comes down to moral conviction apparently in your viewpoint. when i sit in the church pew on Sunday next to a stranger the last thing in the world i think of is who do they love but i hope they love a person they want to love be it the opposite sex or the same sex. it is none of my business who they love. i would hope my government, on any level, takes the same position and respect. quite frankly other than issuing a license and collecting a tax, regulating marriage so to speak, why should a government care who we all love? i have a marriage certificate signed by a priest and issued by my church and that in itself is all i need to validate my love for my wife. i dont need the government to do that for me. why are the justices even arguing about this?
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides