From an ACLU press release
ACLU, NEW YORK — Attorneys for Edith "Edie" Windsor told the U.S. Supreme Court today that the Defense of Marriage Act unfairly forced Windsor to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, in violation of the equal protection principles guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
"Thea and I were legally married. We loved and cared for each other for over 40 years. We deserve to be treated equally by our country, and not like second-class citizens," said Windsor, 83. "While Thea obviously can't be here today, I know how proud she would be to see how far we have come for us to be standing on the steps of the Supreme Court asking for fair treatment of our marriage."
Windsor is represented by attorneys from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; the American Civil Liberties Union; the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
Windsor, who achieved the highest technical rank as a software programmer at IBM, and Spyer, a clinical psychologist, met in the 1960s and lived together for more than four decades in New York City. In 1977, Spyer was diagnosed with progressive multiple sclerosis, and Windsor helped her through her long battle with that disease, which eventually resulted in Spyer's paralysis. The couple was finally legally married in 2007, after a 40-year engagement.
"Two lower courts have concluded that it was unconstitutional for Edie to have to pay a $363,000 estate tax bill simply because, as a lesbian, she was married to a woman, instead of a man," said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss. "We very much hope that the Supreme Court will do the same."
In October, a federal appeals court ruled for Windsor that "Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional."
"Edie and Thea saw each other through four decades of good times and bad, and in sickness and in health like any other married couple," said James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "It's not fair for the federal government to treat them as though their marriage had never happened."
"The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws to all people, straight and gay," said Pamela Karlan, co-director of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. "DOMA's sweeping exclusion of legally married gay couples from all of the federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage undercuts fundamental constitutional principles."
"While Edie's home state of New York and eight other states now grant the freedom to marry to gay couples, this law requires the federal government to ignore these lawful marriages simply because the partners are of the same sex. That's irrational," said New York Civil Liberties Union executive director, Donna Lieberman. "It is time for the Supreme Court to strike down this unconstitutional statute once and for all."
Yesterday, the Supreme Court also heard a separate case that involved a constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8, which relates to the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California.
More information about this case can be found here: aclu.org/edie .
From an NCLR press release
(San Francisco, CA, March 27, 2013)—Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Supreme Court heard 50 minutes of argument concerning the Court's jurisdiction to hear the case and one hour of argument concerning the constitutionality of DOMA.
DOMA was enacted by Congress in 1996 and nullifies the marriages of gay and lesbian couples for purposes of federal law. DOMA states "the word 'marriage' means only the legal union of a man and a 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." DOMA prevents same-sex married couples from receiving federal benefits that all other married couples receive, such as Social Security spousal benefits and health insurance for spouses of federal employees.
The Supreme Court's decision is expected by the end of June 2013.
Statement by NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell, Esq.:
"The so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a mean-spirited law that serves only to harm same-sex couples and their children while helping no one. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree that depriving legally married same-sex couples of the many federal rights and benefits offered to spouses does nothing to strengthen anyone else's marriage. There is no legitimate reason to treat married same-sex couples differently than other couples when it comes to taxes, Social Security, and immigration. As the Solicitor General ably argued today, DOMA is the rare kind of law that is so offensive to the Constitution's basic promise of equality that the government cannot defend it. We join the United States Department of Justice and our colleagues at the ACLU in urging the Court to strike down DOMA."
From a Lambda Legal press release
Edie Windsor had her day in the U.S. Supreme Court today—and she stood courageously for all of us. The federal government must stop discriminating against married same-sex couples. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and must finally be struck down.
Three of Lambda Legal's expert attorneys were in the courtroom to witness history. After successfully challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in our own case before a federal appeals court on behalf of Karen Golinski, we also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in this case with our colleagues from GLAD. We argued that DOMA is a recipe for discrimination: It targets a particular group disliked at the time of its passage, affects important personal interests, and represents a one-time departure from usual federal policy and practice. It's clearly a violation of equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Congratulations to our colleagues at the ACLU, who did a great job representing Edie and arguing for the end of DOMA. The U.S. Department of Justice is on our side, and also argued forcefully today that it is unconstitutional for the government to treat married same-sex couples as if they were not married.
This has been an amazing week for our movement and our country. But great historical moments like these do not just happen—they are built upon years of strategic work.
When Lambda Legal won a thrilling victory at the Supreme Court 10 years ago, we knew it was the end of one legal chapter and the beginning of a new one—and we kept working. After the Court rules on these two momentous cases this term, there will still be lots of critical work to be done for LGBT people and people with HIV around the country. You can count on us—we'll be leading the fight.
Kevin Cathcart
Executive Director
Lambda Legal
From an OutServe-SLDN press release:
(WASHINGTON DC) Oral arguments have concluded in the case of U.S. v. Windsor, heard today in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the harm done to service members and their families by the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was among reasons cited by attorneys for the petitioners that the Court should strike down the discriminatory law. In fact, it was the opening example cited by the Solicitor General when describing the harm DOMA does to gay and lesbian married couples. To read the full transcript, including references to members of the armed forces beginning on page 80, click here. To listen to audio, click here.
Gay and lesbian service members and their families are clearly being denied the equal protection under the law that the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution demands — and that discrimination is hurting our country," said Allyson Robinson, an Army veteran and OutServe-SLDN Executive Director. "The stories of military families are among the most compelling examples of how DOMA wreaks havoc on American lives and actually compromises our national security. It's unconscionable that any American would be asked to risk his or her life to defend this nation and then be treated as a second-class citizen by the military."
In an exclusive interview with MSNBC's Thomas Roberts today, the real life example of Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, who died following a battle with cancer as she and her family were fighting DOMA in court, was brought to light by her widow, Karen Morgan. The surviving spouse, though legally married in the State of New Hampshire, is denied key survivor benefits due to DOMA. To see the complete interview, click here.
The Morgans are plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought in October 2011, McLaughlin v. Panetta, challenging DOMA on behalf of eight gay and lesbian military families. Lead plaintiff in the case, Casey McLaughlin, addressed yesterday's United For Marriage Rally on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. To view her remarks, click here.
The McLaughlin case is stayed in the U.S. First Circuit pending the outcome of ongoing Supreme Court consideration in the Windsor Case.
Full transcript available here: www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-307_jnt1.pdf .
Full video of the press conference on the steps has been uploaded by the Respect for Marriage Coalition.
Part 1 (Legal Team): www.youtube.com/watch .
Part 2 (Edie): www.youtube.com/watch .
Part 3: Includes a memorable moment with Edie Windsor (at 5:30 in Part 3). www.youtube.com/watch .
Audio linked here:
soundcloud.com/washington-post/doma-oral-arguments-at-supreme .
