- Title: USA: US appeals court rules against the Defense of Marriage Act
- Date: 18th October 2012
- Summary: NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES (OCTOBER 18, 2012) (REUTERS) ( ** BEWARE FLASH PHOTOGRPHY **) EDITH WINDSOR, WHO CHALLENGED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, TALKING TO REPORTERS NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (NYCLU) SIGN WINDSOR SPEAKING TO REPORTERS NEWS CONFERENCE WITH WINDSOR AND OTHER ATTENDEES (SOUNDBITE) (English) EDITH "EDIE" WINDSOR, A WOMAN WHO SUCCESSFULLY
- Embargoed: 2nd November 2012 12:00
- Keywords:
- Location: Usa
- Country: USA
- Topics: Legal System,Politics
- Reuters ID: LVA7Z2VIMXEEBX3VHZ3YEHHRYJU1
- Story Text: Supporters of same-sex marriage welcome a US appeals court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act. Edith "Edie" Windsor, who successfully sued the government for failing to recognize her marriage to her partner, feels vindicated in her victory.
A U.S. appeals court in New York ruled on Thursday (October 18) that a U.S. law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. It was the second federal appeals court to reject the law, which could go before the Supreme Court soon.
The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was in favor of Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old woman who argued that the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against gay and lesbian couples, violating equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Windsor sued the government for failing to recognize her marriage to her partner Thea Spyer, after Spyer's death in 2009. Windsor, a former IBM computer programmer had married Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two had been engaged since 1967.
Spyer had died of multiple sclerosis, leaving all of her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 (USD) in federal estate taxes, according to her lawsuit.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. Since then, six states have legalized same-sex marriage but, because of the 1996 law, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in those states.
Supporters of same-sex marriage welcomed Thursday's ruling.
At a news conference organized by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Windsor and her lawyers said they felt vindicated.
"I'm thrilled that the Second Circuit has agreed that the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against gay people. Not only is it illegal but the Supreme Court has now ruled it violates the fundamental principles of fairness and equality that our nation is build on. I look forward to the day when the federal government will recognize the marriages of all Americas and am hoping that will happen during my lifetime," Windsor told reporters.
She went on to talk about her deceased partner in loving and respectful terms, emphasizing how she felt it was unfair of the law to not officially recognize what was according to her, a committed relationship and marriage.
"This is a woman (Thea Spyer) who reinvented herself every year of her life, from there on end. Life stayed joyous, life stayed in love. And the idea that the government wouldn't recognize it, I found so offensive, ok? That this woman that I lived with and adored and who loved me, that they treated her as if she was a stranger in my life," she said.
Windsor is represented by the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU).
Windsor's attorneys argued that the act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. A federal court in New York agreed, and the ruling by the 2nd Circuit on Thursday upheld the lower court decision.
"It's clear to me that this issue, which is the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are now two federal appeals courts that have said that DOMA violates the constitution. And the Supreme Court can't just let that sit there because they can't have a world where DOMA is unconstitutional in the North Eastern part of the United States and constitutional everywhere else," said Windsor's lawyer, James Esseks.
Esseks is also the director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project.
Paul Clement, a lawyer for a congressional group that defended the law, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The law is being defended in court by a group appointed by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, after the Obama administration said last year it considered the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it.
The group argued that the law was needed to maintain a uniform definition of marriage, that it served the government's interest of saving money and that it helped encourage procreation.
The 2nd Circuit rejected those arguments.
The 2-1 decision also found that gays and lesbians are entitled to heightened protection from the courts, based on the history of discrimination the group has suffered.
The ruling did not address another provision of the law that says that states where same-sex marriage is illegal do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that permit it.
Federal district courts in California and Connecticut have also ruled against the law. The U.S. Supreme Court often reviews cases where courts strike down federal laws and it may take up the Defense of Marriage Act in coming months.
The case is Windsor v. USA et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-2335. - Copyright Holder: REUTERS
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None