Same sex marriage issue - Assignment Example

Same-sex Marriage Issue Same-sex Marriage Issue The article asserts that the marriage of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer is recognized by the State of New York. However, it expounds on how Windsor was barred by Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from tax exemption when she claimed the federal estate tax exemption because she was a surviving spouse. According to the article, the denial of the exemption was in connection with the provided definition of marriage and spouse that excluded same-sex partners.

According to the Attorney General, as well as the District Court, , the quest for the tax refund by Windsor was constitutional, and it is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In tandem with this, the article asserts that DOMA violates not only basic due process, but also equal protection principles that are applicable to the Federal Government by injuring the class New York aims to protect. According to Kennedy, the failure of the Executive to defend §3 in court while denying refunds and at the same time assessing deficiencies resulted in a complication.

In connection with this, the article claims that the government of the United States established a controversy that was sufficient for Article III jurisdiction by refusing to pay the refund to Windsor. However, the ruling by the amicus showed that it was the right of Windsor to ask for the refund of the tax she had paid because same-sex marriage should be given recognition as well as validated by law (United States v. Windsor, Executor of the State of Spyer, et al., 2013).Questions1. What was the main reason for Windsor filing the refund suit?

She was contended that the DOMA was violating her protection right as a surviving spouse that is incorporated in the Fifth Amendment.2. What made DOMA bar Windsor from claiming the state-federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses? According to DOMA, the definition of marriage and spouse in New York did not recognize marriage of couples from the same sex.3. Why did the government of the U.S. deny refund of Windsor’s tax? The government aimed at eliminating the injury that was to be imposed on the National Treasury if the refund was made.4. Why did the Attorney General of the U.S. notify the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department of Justice would not defend the constitutionality of DOMA’s §3?

The Department had previously defended DOMA against cases associated with legally married same-sex couples, and it was time for heightened scrutiny on the issue to be made.5. Why was the Government or BLAG not entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the ruling on Windsor’s case? The ruling in the District Court was not associated with any dispute regarding the concrete disagreement made between the opposing parties.ReferenceUnited States v. Windsor, Executor of the State of Spyer, et al. (2013). Supreme Court of the United States.

Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled