Gay marriage reaches Supreme Court: Justices to review Prop 8., DOMA

The two cases being taken up by the Supreme Court involve a challenge to California’s Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage and a suit from New York City testing the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP
In this 2008 photo, a couple holds hands as they look for a quiet spot to hold their wedding at City Hall in San Francisco. The US Supreme Court decided Friday to hear the appeal of a ruling that struck down Proposition 8, the state’s measure that banned same sex marriages.

The US Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up two potential landmark gay rights cases, one testing California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and the other examining the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

At issue is whether the measures unconstitutionally discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

The action positions the high court at the center of a heated debate over same-sex marriage in America.

It comes roughly a month after voters in three states – Maryland, Washington, and Maine – agreed to authorize marriages without regard to sexual orientation. That brings to nine the number of states plus the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriages in the US.

In contrast, 37 states have either passed constitutional amendments or enacted state statutes upholding the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The appeals likely will be set for oral argument in March or April, with decisions by late June.

At issue in the California Prop. 8 case is whether the state-wide referendum in 2008 banning same-sex marriage violated the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry.

The appeal – by supporters of Prop. 8 – asks the justices to overturn decisions by a federal judge and a federal appeals court panel striking down the state-wide ballot initiative.

The ballot campaign was launched to reverse a 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court earlier that year that the state’s constitution required recognition of same-sex marriages.

The referendum took that question directly to California voters. They decided 52 percent to 48 percent to overturn the court ruling and amend the state constitution to explicitly define marriage in California as a union of one man and one woman.

The appeals court panel ruled 2-to-1 that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional because it used a campaign of animosity against homosexuals to rescind a constitutional right that had already been granted. The ballot initiative violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the appeals court said.

The appeal in the DOMA case, meanwhile, asks the high court to examine whether the 1996 statute is a form of unlawful discrimination against same-sex couples whose marriages were recognized as legal by their home states.

The measure received bipartisan support, passing 342 to 67 in the House of Representatives and 85 to 14 in the Senate, and was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

It determined that federal spousal benefits would be distributed based on Congress’s definition of marriage – one man and one woman. Prior to that, the federal government had followed each state’s determination of who was legally married.

The legislation was passed in reaction to a state court ruling in Hawaii that suggested it might recognize a right to same-sex marriage.

DOMA defines marriage for purposes of federal benefits as a union of one man and one woman. It means that under federal law heterosexual married couples are eligible to receive some 1,100 spousal benefits that are not available to same-sex married couples. These benefits include a waiver from the estate tax, collection of Social Security survivor benefits, filing a joint tax return, and inclusion in a federal employee health-care plan, among others.

Specifically, the court said it will decide the DOMA issue via a case involving an elderly woman in New York City who is challenging a decision by the government to deny her a spousal waiver from the federal estate tax. 

Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer spent 42 years together in New York City. They first met in 1963 and got engaged to each other in 1967 – a time when there was no recognition of same-sex marriage.

Ten years later in 1977, Ms. Spyer was diagnosed with multiple scleroris, a condition that eventually left her a paraplegic requiring 24-hour care.

In 2007, when doctors concluded that Spyer did not have much longer to live, Windsor and Spyer traveled to Canada to fulfill a shared lifelong dream. They got married.

Two years later, when Spyer passed away, Windsor sought to settle the couple’s estate. New York State recognized the marriage as valid, but under DOMA the federal government did not.

That meant that Windsor would not be entitled to claim the standard marital exemption from the federal inheritance tax. Even though she and Spyer had dedicated their lives to each other and obtained a legal marriage recognized as valid by their home state, their marriage remained invalid in the eyes of the federal government.

Windsor was forced to pay a $363,000 assessment. Had Spyer been a man, that assessment would have been $0.

Windsor sued, claiming DOMA violated her right to equal protection. A federal judge and a federal appeals court panel both agreed, ruling that DOMA violates the constitutional mandate that the government treat all citizens equally and fairly.

Windsor’s DOMA case was selected among eight appeals challenging the federal marriage law. The court took no action on the other pending appeals.

The accepted cases are Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144) and US v. Windsor (12-307).

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Gay marriage reaches Supreme Court: Justices to review Prop 8., DOMA
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today