In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, which previously barred same-sex couples from receiving the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, found Edith Schlain, who had married her spouse, Thea Spyer, in Ontario, Canada in 2007, had the right to claim an estate tax exemption when Spyer passed away in 2009. She previously had been denied the right to claim Spyer as a spouse under DOMA, which excluded same-sex couples from the definition of spouse.
The court ruled in her favor, awarding her tax refund plus interests and setting off a celebration from LGBT supporters outside the courthouse.
On Twitter, President Barack Obama called the ruling,” a historic step forward for marriage equality”.
While Schlain’s case worked its way through the courts, the Obama administration announced in 2011 that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional and thus would no longer be enforced by the Department of Justice, or DOJ. The House of Representatives elected to continue to defend DOMA, leading the class all the way to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts as well as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote dissenting opinions for the case.
—
Following a 5-4 decision to declare key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving California’s Proposition 8, which previously barred same-sex couples from marrying.
The court ruled 5-4 to deny the ability of petitioners seeking to affirm Proposition 8 to defend the measure in federal court, effectively clearing the way for same-sex couples to wed in California.
Proposition 8 previously had been found unconstitutional by U.S. District Court in 2010, saying the constitutional amendment passed by California voters in 2008 was in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution.
In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the court held that petitioners needed to hold specific grievances in order to defend the proposition.
“No matter how deeply committed petitioners may be to upholding Proposition 8, that is not a particularized interest sufficient to create a case or controversy under Article III,” Roberts wrote.
The court’s announcement, while it didn’t specifically address the legality of same-sex unions, did draw positive reactions from the LGBT community.
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Supreme Court strikes down DOMA in landmark ruling, clears way for gay marriage in California in Prop 8 decision” on social media.
