The Equal Protection Clause - Essay Example

s’ Ban on Marriage by Same-Sex Couples al Affiliation) s’ Ban on Marriage by Same-Sex Couples The case of Windsor v the United States in 2003 presented a question to the courts as to whether a state can deny a citizen the protection and benefits of the laws created by the state on the sole basis of the sex of their partner in a marriage (Finn, 2006). The case involved two women, Thea Spyer and Edith Windsor, who were residents of the state of New York. They travelled to Ontario to get married. The law recognized the two women’s wedding. After the wedding ceremony, they went back to New York. Upon the death of Spyer in 2009, Windsor sought exemption from taxes on the estate left in her custody. The state offers tax exemptions on property left to spouses after the death of their partners (Wood, 2011). However, the state denied her request on realizing that she was married to a person of the same sex. There was a federal law in force in the US, the marriage act that defended marriage, DOMA, which failed to include a same sex partner in its definition of the term ‘spouse’ (Leonard, 2013). She decided to file a suit in court challenging the constitutionality of the federal law provision after agreeing to pay the taxes. Both the US Courts of Appeal and the US District Court delivered a ruling that the provision in the statute law was not constitutional and as such ordered the State of New York to issue a refund for the sum paid by Windsor in taxes for her property (Boies & Olson, 2008). The Supreme Court, in a similar case pitting the Governor of Utah and the Salt Lake City Clerk, in their capacities against Derek Kitchen, Kate Call, Kody Partridge, Moudi Sbeity, Laurie Wood and Karen Archer, did not uphold the decision by the state of Utah to ban marriages by same sex couples in 2004. The plaintiffs complained of abuse of their rights by the state of Utah, since it failed to recognize such marriages and accord them the recognition accorded to marriages between heterosexual partners (Engdahl, 2009). One of the reasons given by the Supreme Court to justify their decision in the appeal was that the provision of that federal law encouraged the curtailment of the right of all American citizens to marry any person of their choice (Leonard, 2013). Further, it would deny this section of the population their right to establish a family as they may will, raise their children as well as enjoy the unconditional protection offered by the laws of the State concerning marriages (Fredericks, 2009). Justice Kennedy posited that the Fourteenth Amendment in the US Constitution protected these rights. It has always been a function of the State to create policies on matters of marriage, and as such, the Court did not give an opinion or challenge the unconstitutionality of marriage laws as provided by the State (Engdahl, 2009). The Equal Protection Clause The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state from coming up with legislation that would abridge the immunities or privileges of their residents (Finn, 2006). Further, this section says that the state shall not deny any person their liberty, property or life without following the due process as provided by the law. This section provides the clause on Equal Protection. In the case of Windsor v the US, it emerged that the State of New York recognized the marriage between Windsor and Spyer despite them having travelled to Ontario to formalize their marriage through a wedding. They had taken a long time to perform a wedding, since every time they made an attempt their efforts were futile. Many citizens of the United States were not receptive to the idea of same sex marriages until recently. Most people believed that the only essential marriage was between a woman and a man (Engdahl, 2009). Recognizing the rights of married couples would go against the will of the people. However, with the increased democratic space in the United States and other parts of the world, it became imperative that laws on same sex coupling and marriages be revisited with the aim of recognizing them as a legal practice. With time, more states removed the limitation of marriage to only heterosexual individuals. States such as New York saw the limitation as an exclusion of a section of the society (Smith, 2006). Currently, the District of Colombia and 12 States, including New York, recognize the same sex couples’ right to enter into a marriage and live proud of their union just as heterosexual couples (Nicolas, 2013). Different States began considerations on marriages by same sex couples in 2006. Before same-sex marriages were accepted by any state, the US Congress decided to enact the DOMA. Section 2 of DOMA allows the States to decline to recognize marriages by same sex couples performed under other states’ laws. In this case, as mentioned by the presiding judge, DOMA Section 3 was the matter under contention. DOMA failed to include marriage between same-sex couples in its definition of marriage, therefore causing the denial of tax exemption in Windsor’s case. DOMA clearly defines marriage as a legal union that brings together a woman and a man and that ‘spouse’ refers to an individual of the opposite sex in a marriage (Wood, 2011). It is important to note that in the course of this trial, the US Department of Justice, through the Attorney General, notified the House of Representatives of its unwillingness to continue defending the provisions of DOMA. The reason for this unwillingness was that the Presidency had considered the unfairness and discrimination to which a section of US citizens were subjected to, and decided that matters to do with classification of individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation required heightened scrutiny standards (Boies & Olson, 2008). However, the executive decide to retain its practice of DOMA section 3, as an indication that it recognized the role played by the courts in the arbitration of constitutional claims raised. Further, the decision by the executive to retain its practice of section 3 was to allow the US Congress a fair and full opportunity to take part in litigation of such cases such as those that involve sexual orientation (Fredericks, 2009). This is an indication of the lack of willingness to change the content of DOMA to include same sex individuals in its description of spouses (Pierceson & Schulenberg, 2010). The issue that the Supreme Court had with Utah’s legislation was that it singled out people of the same sex who sought to engage in a union of marriage. The Fourteenth Amendment does not go into the details of mentioning the section of the population that it seeks to protect. In that regard, it is safe to assume that all citizens have a free hand to decide the person with whom they wanted to get emotionally and sexually involved. The Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment covers all the citizens of the United States (Leonard, 2013). The Utah legislation in question stipulated that the state would only recognize marriage if it was people of different sexes. Further, Section 30-1-4.1 (b) posits that any marriage that is not between a woman and a man would not receive recognition from the state (Boies & Olson, 2008). Further, the law protecting married couples of different sexes such as the law on legal status, duties assigned to each off the partners in a marriage as recognized by the law and benefits enjoyed by recognized married couples would not apply to same sex couples (Finn, 2006). In a constitutional amendment famously called Amendment 3, the State of Utah presented two referendum statements. The first one was a declaration that marriage is a legal union between people of different sexes. The second referendum statement further stated that a domestic union could only receive due recognition if it was a legal union between a woman and a man. A further clarification that any other domestic union other than the one defined by the first question would not receive the same legal effect as the one given to marriages between men and women is clear in the second question (Nicolas, 2013). The argument brought forth by the proponents of the Amendment was that it was necessary to avoid similar rulings in state court. They argued that the Amendment would serve the purpose of preserving the notion of marriage as held by the public for a long time. Further, they posited that the Amendment was in line with the interests of the government to maintain morality by the public, justifying their recognition of heterosexual couples on the perpetuation of the human race through having children (Pierceson & Schulenberg, 2010). This argument received intense opposition. One of the critiques against the Amendment was that it increased hostility and advocated for intolerance, bigotry and hatred (Smith, 2006). Further, these opponents complained about the fact that the Amendment singled out a section of the population of Utah residents in order to deny them their numerous protections and rights as provided by the constitution. At the vote, the Amendment passed, forming Section 29 of the First Article of the Constitution of Utah. It is notable that there was a deviation by the state of Utah from the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment in the creation of Amendment 3. This deviation exists in the sense that the Fourteenth Amendment provided the liberties that the couples of the same sex living in Utah could not enjoy. By refusing to recognize marriages between same sex individuals, the state of Utah went against the provision of the fourteenth Amendment that prevails upon the authorities and the public to recognize a union between two consenting adults, regardless of their sexes (Wood, 2011). Judge Kennedy, in Windsor v The United States, shared the clear opinions he had concerning DOMA. Instead of DOMA being a protector of the right of people to marry, it is an Act that curtails the freedom of same sex couples to start their own families, aside from denying them their protected rights provided for by both state legislations and federal laws. That is evident from the denial of Windsor her tax exemption, prompting her to pay tax on her inherited property. It violates the Clause on Equal Protection as provided for in the 14th Amendment (Nicolas, 2013). Due Process Clause The case of Lawrence v Texas, where police officers were dispatched after someone had reported a case of weapon disturbance, exhibits the issue of due process in the restriction of a citizen’s rights. The police officers went and entered the house of the petitioner, Mr. John Geddes Lawrence, without a warrant (Feder, 2005). The police walked in on Mr. Lawrence and his partner, Tyson Garner, practicing sexual intercourse. The police officers arrested the petitioners. The following day, a court charged and convicted both Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner. The law in the state of Texas prohibits people of the same sex to indulge in sexual acts in the Texas Penal Code Ann. Section 21.06(a) of the year 2003 (Smith, 2006). Later, both the petitioners challenged the statute, arguing that it was a violation of both the clauses on Equal Protection and Due Process. This case, before a County Criminal Court, fined them each $200 aside from ordering them to cover court costs amounting to $141.25. The Fourteenth District Courts of Appeal considered the petitioners’ appeal, under both the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection Act. After considering the court decision in Hardwick v Bowers, 478 US 186 of 1986, rejected the petitioners’ arguments on the constitution and confirmed their convictions. However, the Supreme Court admitted the case and considered whether there was a violation of the petitioners’ rights (Finn, 2006). The presiding Judge, Judge Kennedy, read in his judgment that there was need to determine whether the petitioners were free adults who could undertake their engagements in private as posited in the Due Process Clause (Fredericks, 2009). There are considerable similarities between this case and the Bowers case, where a police officer in Georgia observed Hardwick engaging in acts of sexual intimacy with another male adult. A statute law in Georgia prohibits actions of sodomy, regardless of whether it was between people of the same sex or not (Pierceson & Schulenberg, 2010). Hardwick went to court, seeking a declaration of the particular statute as invalid. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause declares that a person can have their rights denied after following due process (Leonard, 2013). In this light, it was evident that Lawrence and Garner received punishment for expressing their sexual orientation (Feder, 2005). Justice Thomas stipulated in his dissenting opinion that he would recommend the repealing of the statute. By arresting and charging Lawrence and his partner, the Texas State police were in violation of the Due Process Clause, since they failed to respect Lawrence’s and Garner’s right to privacy and freedom to express their private sexual preferences in private (Smith, 2006). References Boies, D., & Olson, T. B. (2008). Redeeming the dream: the case for marriage equality. New York, N.Y.] (222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017): New York. Engdahl, S. (2009). Amendment XIV: equal protection. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press/Gale Cengage Learning. Feder, J. (2005). Homosexuality and the Constitution: a legal analysis of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress ;. Finn, J. E. (2006). Civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. Chantilly, VA: Teaching Co.. Fredericks, C. (2009). Amendment XIV: due process. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Leonard, A. S. (2013). Sexuality and the Law American Law and Society.. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Nicolas, P. (2013). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and the constitution. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. Pierceson, J., Crocker, A., & Schulenberg, S. (2010). Marriage by people of the same sex in the Americas: policy innovation for same-sex relationships. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. Smith, A. M. (2006). Same-sex marriages legal issues. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Wood, J. (2011). Taking sides. New York: McGraw Hill. Read More