Prediction about United States v. Windsor’ Case
In studying of the United States v. Windsor’s case and additional cases and resources, I think the best and the optimistic result of the United States v. Windsor’s case is that the Supreme Court will hold the Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally. But I think that there are some assumptions in advance. Especially eliminating the religious factor and the majority of people’s traditional interests are necessary. These factors have pretty big influences on the final result. In general, my prediction is conceptually and ideally. Under DOMA, I believe that two sections create the most conflicts and disputes. The Section 2 of DOMA says “no state has an obligation to recognize marriages that same-sex couples legally entered into in another state” and Section 3 of DOMA points out that “the Federal government does not have to recognize or honor marriage that same-sex couples legally entered into anywhere”. The Section 3 of DOMA leads the most serious consequence and I think it is unconstitutional. By gathering different information, briefly, I found out that same-sex couples are denied the rights, responsibilities and protections under around 1100 rights. For example, in Windsor’s case, her marriage relationship is only recognized by New York State but the Federal government. Edie Windsor has to pay Federal $363,000 taxes in order to get her “wife’s property”. However, if she is not a lesbian, she will not require paying a penny to the Federal government. DOMA states that: “Marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” (Defense of Marriage Act) Based on this fact, Federal denied Windsor’s rights to get the assets from her dead “wife” since they are not recognized marriage. Furthermore, implied this law to more same-sex couples, they are denied the social security benefits,...
References: Buffett, Mary. "On Gay Marriage and Civil Rights for All."Huff Post. (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-buffett/on-gay-marriage-and-civil_b_2994891.html>.
KEN, KLUKOWSKI. "HIGHLIGHTS FROM SUPREME COURT DOMA ARGUMENTS." (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/30/Highlights-from-Supreme-Court-DOMA-arguments>.
ARI EZRA WALDMAN, . "The DOMA Cases -- The 10th Amendment Tango Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/the-doma-cases-the-10th-amendment-tango.html
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3 4 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Windsor v. United States. 2013. Web. <http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4508c209-d9ba-4fd0-a7cb-7c237e4f58fd/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf
WHY THE FEDERAL “DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE” ACT (DOMA) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Web. <http://www.ucc.org/assets/pdfs/emr21.pdf>.
Kevin M. Cathcart, . "From Sex to Marriage: How We Got From Lawrence v. Texas to the Cases Against DOMA and Prop 8." Lambda Legal. (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/from-sex-to-marriage-intro>.
Virginia E. McGarrity, . "Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Appeals Court." (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_0812_mcgarrity.html>.
BRAD BANNON, . "Why the Supreme Court Will Rule in Favor of Gay Marriage." USNews. (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brad-bannon/2012/12/12/why-the-supreme-court-will-rule-in-favor-of-gay-marriage>.
"DOMA arguments: Audio and transcript from the Supreme Court." Los Angeles Times. (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doma-arguments-audio-transcript-dto,0,5752785.story>.
Jon W. Davidson, . "DOMA at the Supreme Court, Explained." LambdaLegal. (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/doma-at-scotus-explained>.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document