US Supreme Court Decides Marriage Not Only a Relationship Between a Man and a Woman
Published in Gazeta Wyborcza
(Poland) on 26 June 2013
by Mariusz Zawadzki (link to original)
(Poland) on 26 June 2013
by Mariusz Zawadzki (link to original)
Translated from
by Michał Bolek.
Edited by Bora Mici.
One cannot deny same-sex marriages the privileges that the traditional ones have. This is unconstitutional, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. This ruling is a breakthrough in the fight for the legalization of same-sex marriages in entire U.S. “Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for marriage equality,” wrote Barack Obama on Twitter. He was flying to Africa on the presidential airplane Air Force One when the verdict was reached. Similar to most historic decisions by the nine most important judges in the U.S., this one was also made with the least possible majority of votes — five to four.
Gays and lesbians, gathered in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, received the ruling with the outburst of joy, even though it does not mean at all that same-sex marriages will be possible and legal in the whole U.S. However, they became fully and conclusively legal in those states that already allow them.
The Supreme Court revoked the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by then-president Bill Clinton. The law defined marriage as a “legal union of one man and one woman,” which created a bizarre, paradoxical legal situation: More and more states allowed same-sex marriages, but the federal government, faithful to DOMA, did not recognize them.
It had its serious and practical consequences: For example, two men, after getting married in liberal Boston, could not take advantage of tax exemptions for marriages, even though they were married in the eyes of the state law. There were around 1,000 federal family-friendly programs from which same-sex marriages were excluded under the authority of DOMA.
The act was brought to the Supreme Court by 84-year-old lesbian Edie Windsor who, after her wife’s death — they got married in New York — had to pay as much as $363,000 of inheritance tax on her partner’s apartment. On the other hand, if her partner had been a man, Windsor would have been exempted from taxation. She recognized she was a victim of discrimination and took her case to court. The case “Windsor vs. the U.S.” went through all levels of the judiciary, until at last, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court admitted that Windsor was right. Just after that, the president called to congratulate her from on board of Air Force One.
Anthony Kennedy, who was believed from the very beginning to be the one to decide about the ruling, justified the decision on the majority’s behalf. He is regarded as a moderate conservative, but he voted together with four liberal judges on Wednesday. It was not because he particularly sympathizes with gays and lesbians, but because he supports the advanced autonomy of each of the 50 U.S. states.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment [which guarantees equal rights]," wrote Justice Kennedy.
"The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act is a historic victory for the quintessentially American principle of equal justice under the law," commented New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
“No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,” tweeted extremely right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who, without success, tried to get the Republican nomination in the presidential election last year. However, such dramatic voices were few because a real social revolution has occurred in recent years; now, as surveys show, most Americans are for same-sex marriages.
President Obama, who said at the beginning that his opinion on this matter is evolving, also changed his attitude; a couple of months before his re-election last year, he announced that he supports same-sex marriages. He said also that the Department of Justice would not defend DOMA in the Supreme Court, so a bizarre situation unfolded: The U.S. government did not support the law that was in effect but enforced it — especially through the Internal Revenue Service.
Until Wednesday, 12 states and the District of Columbia licensed same-sex marriages. On Wednesday it became 13; California, the most populous state, will also license them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in a separate case, which was finalized the same day. This means that around 30 percent of Americans live in regions where same-sex marriages have been legalized.
The situation in California has been particularly tangled for several years. In 2008 the state passed a law on same-sex marriages, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court, but the decision was revoked after a state referendum a couple of months later — 52 percent of the voters were against same-sex marriages.
The result of the referendum was appealed by same-sex proponents. When they won in court, California authorities decided not to lodge an appeal, but conservative activists decided to make an appeal on behalf of authorities; thanks to their appeals, the case reached Washington.
On Wednesday the Supreme Court decided by a ratio of 5 to 4 that conservative groups did not have the right to lodge an appeal on behalf of state authorities, so the verdict of the lower court remains in force. It annulled the referendum: That is, it allowed gays and lesbians from California to get married — until the Supreme Court's decision, just the enforcement of this ruling was withheld.
Based on the interpretation of the judicial proceedings and not on the rules, such a ruling is a partial victory for gays and lesbians. They hoped that the judges would decide that the ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, which would have meant that all American states have to start licensing them. It was not the case; the Wednesday ruling will have its consequences only for California. Gays and lesbians from the 37 states where they do not have the right to get married will have to fight for marriage rights.
What is interesting is that the judges’ votes were distributed completely differently in the California case: Justice Kennedy voted “against” gays and lesbians.
Gays and lesbians, gathered in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, received the ruling with the outburst of joy, even though it does not mean at all that same-sex marriages will be possible and legal in the whole U.S. However, they became fully and conclusively legal in those states that already allow them.
The Supreme Court revoked the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by then-president Bill Clinton. The law defined marriage as a “legal union of one man and one woman,” which created a bizarre, paradoxical legal situation: More and more states allowed same-sex marriages, but the federal government, faithful to DOMA, did not recognize them.
It had its serious and practical consequences: For example, two men, after getting married in liberal Boston, could not take advantage of tax exemptions for marriages, even though they were married in the eyes of the state law. There were around 1,000 federal family-friendly programs from which same-sex marriages were excluded under the authority of DOMA.
The act was brought to the Supreme Court by 84-year-old lesbian Edie Windsor who, after her wife’s death — they got married in New York — had to pay as much as $363,000 of inheritance tax on her partner’s apartment. On the other hand, if her partner had been a man, Windsor would have been exempted from taxation. She recognized she was a victim of discrimination and took her case to court. The case “Windsor vs. the U.S.” went through all levels of the judiciary, until at last, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court admitted that Windsor was right. Just after that, the president called to congratulate her from on board of Air Force One.
Anthony Kennedy, who was believed from the very beginning to be the one to decide about the ruling, justified the decision on the majority’s behalf. He is regarded as a moderate conservative, but he voted together with four liberal judges on Wednesday. It was not because he particularly sympathizes with gays and lesbians, but because he supports the advanced autonomy of each of the 50 U.S. states.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment [which guarantees equal rights]," wrote Justice Kennedy.
"The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act is a historic victory for the quintessentially American principle of equal justice under the law," commented New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
“No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,” tweeted extremely right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who, without success, tried to get the Republican nomination in the presidential election last year. However, such dramatic voices were few because a real social revolution has occurred in recent years; now, as surveys show, most Americans are for same-sex marriages.
President Obama, who said at the beginning that his opinion on this matter is evolving, also changed his attitude; a couple of months before his re-election last year, he announced that he supports same-sex marriages. He said also that the Department of Justice would not defend DOMA in the Supreme Court, so a bizarre situation unfolded: The U.S. government did not support the law that was in effect but enforced it — especially through the Internal Revenue Service.
Until Wednesday, 12 states and the District of Columbia licensed same-sex marriages. On Wednesday it became 13; California, the most populous state, will also license them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in a separate case, which was finalized the same day. This means that around 30 percent of Americans live in regions where same-sex marriages have been legalized.
The situation in California has been particularly tangled for several years. In 2008 the state passed a law on same-sex marriages, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court, but the decision was revoked after a state referendum a couple of months later — 52 percent of the voters were against same-sex marriages.
The result of the referendum was appealed by same-sex proponents. When they won in court, California authorities decided not to lodge an appeal, but conservative activists decided to make an appeal on behalf of authorities; thanks to their appeals, the case reached Washington.
On Wednesday the Supreme Court decided by a ratio of 5 to 4 that conservative groups did not have the right to lodge an appeal on behalf of state authorities, so the verdict of the lower court remains in force. It annulled the referendum: That is, it allowed gays and lesbians from California to get married — until the Supreme Court's decision, just the enforcement of this ruling was withheld.
Based on the interpretation of the judicial proceedings and not on the rules, such a ruling is a partial victory for gays and lesbians. They hoped that the judges would decide that the ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, which would have meant that all American states have to start licensing them. It was not the case; the Wednesday ruling will have its consequences only for California. Gays and lesbians from the 37 states where they do not have the right to get married will have to fight for marriage rights.
What is interesting is that the judges’ votes were distributed completely differently in the California case: Justice Kennedy voted “against” gays and lesbians.