The “United States v. Windsor” is a landmark case that involved the Supreme Court and the institution of marriage in the United States, particularly the State of New York. The case was decided in 2013 and its main issue was to challenge the constitutionality of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) (Harrison 57). The “United States v. Windsor” case pitted Edith Windsor, a widower, and one party in a same-sex marriage, against the United States. Windsor and Thea Spyer were issued with a marriage license in Ontario Canada, but the couple later relocated to New York where Mrs. Spyer later died in the year 2009 and bequeathed her estate to her marriage partner.
The marriage between Spyer and Windsor was recognizable in the State of New York as of 2008. The issue arose when Windsor “sought a spousal exemption from the federal estate tax where it was denied under the DOMA” (Culhane 27). Consequently, Windsor set out to challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. The case went from the District Court to the Court of Appeal, and then to the Supreme Court where a decision was issued in Windsor’s favor.
The Supreme Court’s “decision was delivered on June 26 2013 and it declared Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional” (Myers 22). According to the court, it is unconstitutional to differentiate and discriminate against state-recognized marriage unions based on matters of sexuality. The judgment in “United States v. Windsor” was upheld by four out of five Supreme Court judges and it was delivered by Justice Kennedy. According to the judgment, “the State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance….states possess the historic and essential authority to define the marital relation…DOMA, on the other hand, departs from this history and tradition” (the United States 2692). Nevertheless, there were dissenting decisions in “United States v. Windsor”, and they sought to affirm that the “judges had no power to decide on this case” (Yackle 641). The dissenting opinions also found the decision of the majority to be based on federalism and not equal rights.
The main purpose of the United States Constitution is to ensure equality of all citizens and eliminate discrimination, and the decision in “United States v. Windsor” was in the spirit of ‘due process and equal protection’ (Culhane 27). Therefore, discrimination of same-sex marriages defied the element of the constitution’s equal protection of rights (Eskridge 150). The decision was also based on federalism because the rights of the state and those of the federal system were intersecting.
References
Culhane, John. “United States v. Windsor and the Future of Civil Unions and Other Marriage Alternatives.” Villanova Law Review 59.6 (2014): 27. Print.
Eskridge, William. “The Marriage Equality Cases and Constitutional Theory.” Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 2.1 (2014): 111-431. Print.
Harrison, Jack. “At Long Last Marriage.” American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 24.1 (2015): 55-64. Print.
Myers, Richard. “The Implications of Justice Kennedy’s opinion in United States v. Windsor. Elon Law Review, Forthcoming 5.1 (2014): 22-25. Print.
United States v. Windsor. 133 U.S 2680-9. Supreme Court of the United States. 2013. Government Archives. Print.
Yackle, Larry. “Friendly Amendment, A.” BUL Rev. 95.1 (2015): 641. Print.