Same Sex Marriage/Marriage Equality Case: United States v. Windsor - Assignment Example

On November 9, 2010, Windsor filed a lawsuit requesting for a refund based upon the discriminatory content of DOMA. (“United States v. Windsor) 2 years later, Judge Barbara S. Jones declared the unconstitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional as it violates the 5th Amendment. Supporting the decision of Jones on October 18, 2012, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision of Jones which also instructed the federal government to issue a tax refund with interest to Windsor (“United States v.

Windsor”). The U.S Department of Justice sought to overturn the decision of the court of appeals by filing a motion before the United States Supreme Court that they hoped would reverse the decision declaring DOMA a violation of the constitution. A Writ of Certiorari was issued in December 2012 while argument were heard before the court. The oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013. After almost 3 months of debate on the facts of the case and the constitutionality issue set forth before the Supreme Court justices, a 5-4 decision was arrived at.

The decision made with finality by the United States Supreme Court was that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional in that it deprived a person of liberty as outlined in the 5th Amendment (“United States v. Windsor). Back in 1996, the national government felt a need to protect the definition of marriage as a legally recognized union between a man and a woman. The necessity to define the act of marriage stemmed from the increasing pressure from the same-sex and gay rights groups to have the states pass same - sex laws that would recognize their unions in a similar way to marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was then passed. Under this act, “for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal unions between one man and woman” (United States v. Windsor”). The reason that DOMA became a constitutional issue is because of the way that the act restricted the actions of the state pertaining to the union of same-sex couples. The same act also limited the constitutional protection of same-sex couples who are legally married in other states or countries.

In the case of DOMA the reasoning “married valid where contracted is valid everywhere” did not apply to same sex couples. These couples were not afforded the same state and national coverage and protection that heterosexual married couples enjoyed even though the same-sex couples were living and abiding by the rules of marriage as defined by federal law (excluding section 3 of DOMA). It was then President Bill Clinton who in 1996 signed DOMA into federal law which “1) defined marriage in federal law; and, 2) enabled states -- even in the face of claims made pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause -- to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

“ (Gacek, Chris “Basic Facts About the Defense of Marriage Act”). Under the constitution, married couples are allowed equal protection under the law. This includes coverage for their union that extends but is not limited to “Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights, and family leave” (Williams, Pete & McClam, Eric “Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marria