DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government” —Kennedy, Justice 

Facts: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were same-sex partners who resided in the state of New York. They began their long-term relationship in 1963. In 2007, Windsor and Spyer made a trip to Canada where they were lawfully married. They continued to live in New York. The state of New York recognized the marriage of Windsor and Spyer. Spyer died in 2009, and left her entire estate to Windsor. In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3 of this federal statute defined “marriage” as a legal union between a husband and wife, and defined “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. Because of these definitions, DOMA denies same-sex married partners benefits allowed to heterosexual married couples in more than 1,000 federal statues and thousands of federal regulations. Thus, it denies same-sex partners Social Security benefits if a partner dies, does not permit same-sex partners to file joint federal tax returns, and denies same-sex partners countless other federal benefits allowed to heterosexual married couples. When Spyer died, Windsor sought to claim the federal tax exemption for surviving spouses. This would have saved Windsor $363,053 in federal estate taxes. However, DOMA barred her from obtaining this exemption. Windsor paid the taxes but filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court alleging that Section 3 of DOMA violated the guarantee of equal protection provided by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. district court and the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the challenged provision of DOMA was unconstitutional and ordered the United States to pay Windsor a tax refund. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. 

Issue: Is Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional?

Language of the U.S. Supreme: Court New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces samesex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life. The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause and that federal benefits are available to same-sex married couples equally with heterosexual married couples. 

Ethics Question: The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision makes federal benefits equally available to same-sex married couples and married heterosexual couples. However, since not all states recognize same-sex marriages, federal benefits will be available only to same-sex partners in states that do recognize same-sex marriages. Does this result create another form of discrimination?