On June 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor declared unconstitutional part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined marriage solely as a legal union between a man and a woman. Also on June 26, 2013, and also in a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court declined to address the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
The Court heard oral arguments in the DOMA case on Mar. 26, 2013. Justices heard oral arguments on Proposition 8 on Mar. 27, 2013. Please see below for case summaries, audio and transcripts of the oral arguments, and to read the Court’s decisions. In 2013 and 2014, following the United States v. Windsor decision, gay marriage bans were overturned by court rulings in several states, but those rulings were put on hold pending appeals to the US Supreme Court. On Oct. 6, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from five of those states, and the decision immediately cleared the way for legal gay marriage in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Six other states in which gay marriage bans had been overturned, Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming, were also affected by the Supreme Court ruling because they were in the jurisdictions of the lower courts that had overturned the gay marriage bans. |
![]() |
Dennis Hollingsworth v. Kristin M. Perry Heard Mar. 26, 2013 |
Summary: In a 4-3 ruling on May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned state laws banning gay marriage. On Nov. 4, 2008, 52.3% of California voters approved ballot measure Proposition 8, making same-sex marriage illegal in the state. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8’s gay marriage ban, but on Aug. 4, 2010, US District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, and on Feb. 7, 2012, a three-judge panel of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Walker’s ruling. The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the case to the US Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case by granting a writ of certiorari on December 7, 2012, and oral arguments were heard on March 26, 2013. According to supremecourt.gov, the justices were to decide: “(1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case (the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case).”
On June 26, 2013, in a 5-4 decision (169 KB) |
Listen to Audio of Oral Arguments Read Transcript of Oral Arguments |
Select Quotes from the Justices: Sonia Sotomayor: Samuel Alito: |
Select Quotes from Others: |
|
PRO GAY MARRIAGE | CON GAY MARRIAGE |
David Boies, JD, partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and counsel for Kristin Perry in Hollingsworth v. Perry, wrote in his Aug. 24, 2012 amicus curiae brief to Hollingsworth v. Perry (available on scotusblog.com):
|
The National Association of Evangelicals wrote in its Aug. 31, 2012 amicus curiae brief to Hollingsworth v. Perry (available on scotusblog.com):
|
United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor Heard Mar. 27, 2013 |
Summary: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted on Sep. 21, 1996, is a federal law that restricts federal marriage benefits and inter-state marriage recognition to marriages between members of the opposite-sex. Plaintiff Edie Windsor, 83, brought suit against the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service cited DOMA in denying her a refund for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid following the 2009 death of Thea Spyer, her partner for over 40 years. Windsor and Spyer had married in Canada in 2007, but resided in New York. Because Windsor would have been eligible for an estate tax exemption had Spyer been a man, she argues that DOMA violates her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment. According to supremecourt.gov, the justices will decide: “(1) Whether the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State; (2) whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (3) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case (the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case).”
On June 26, 2013, in a 5-4 decision (320 KB) |
Listen to Audio of Oral Arguments Read Transcript of Oral Arguments |
Select Quotes from the Justices:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “[Marriage is] not a question of additional benefits. I mean, [it touches] every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it’s pervasive. It’s not as though, well, there’s this little Federal sphere and it’s only a tax question.
It’s as Justice Kennedy said, 1100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You’re saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”
Anthony Kennedy:
“You think Congress can use its powers to supercede the traditional authority and prerogative of the States to regulate marriage in all respects? Congress could have a uniform definition of marriage that includes age, consanguinity, etc.?… Well, I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage. Well, it applies to over what, 1,100 Federal laws, I think we are saying. So I think there is quite a bit to your argument that if the tax deduction case, which is specific, whether or not if Congress has the power it can exercise it for the reason that it wants, that it likes some marriage it does like, I suppose it can do that. But when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the Federal Government is intertwined with the citizens’ day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”
John Roberts: |
Select Quotes from Others:
|
|
PRO GAY MARRIAGE | CON GAY MARRIAGE |
The Anti-Defamation League, a non-profit organization dedicated to stopping the “defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” wrote in its Mar. 1, 2013 amicus curiae brief to United States v. Windsor (available at scotusblog.com):
|
The Family Research Council, a non-profit organization “dedicated to the promotion of marriage and family and the sanctity of human life in national policy,” wrote in its Jan. 24, 2013 amicus curiae brief to United States v. Windsor (available at scotusblog.com):
|
Related Links:
1. States with Legal Gay Marriage and States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
3. 2012 Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Gay Marriage
People who view this page may also like: |
---|
1. Gay Marriage in the US Supreme Court, 2015 |
2. Are people born gay? Pros and cons in debate over origin of sexual orientation |
3. History of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 1970 - present |