The wait is over! Gay couples across the nation today breathed a collective sigh of relief as the Supreme Court, in a watershed moment in the fight for equality, declared unconstitutional both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies over a thousand federally mandated marriage benefits to legally married same-sex couples, and Proposition 8, a California state ban on same-sex marriage. The Court said that DOMA wrongly “instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.”
It was a broad win for Windsor v. United States, the case that challenged DOMA. The Court ruling on DOMA means that same-sex couples who marry in states where it’s legal for them to do so will be treated the same as heterosexual married couples by the federal government when it comes to things like retirement benefits, inheritance, and taxes, to name just a few.
It was a narrow but equally important win for Hollingsworth v. Perry (famously argued by Republican Ted Olson and Democrat David Boies). While the Court unfortunately stopped short of a broader decision on the fundamental right to marry, the ruling on Perry clears the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California.
The last seven courts to consider whether or not Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional had all concluded that it was. (Section 3 specifically targeted same-sex couples as a class and denied them federal benefits.) In addition, the Court does keep an eye on social trends, and marriage equality had been made legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia, with several of those states enacting it in recent months even while the Court was hearing arguments.
Less likely was a broad win in Proposition 8, because the Supreme Court typically does not make decisions that have a broad effect across the entire country. By dismissing an appeal to a lower court decision on procedural grounds, the right to marry previously granted was reinstated and a stay was immediately lifted. Marriages in California are expected to begin again soon, and other states’ marriage bans are unaffected. Likewise, the victory in the Windsor case affects only states that have already decided or will decide to legalize same-sex marriage.
While lots of attention has been paid to the legal objectives of these cases, it was the personal stories of the plaintiffs that carried the day. It was institutionalized bigotry that was really on trial.
Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer shared their lives together as a couple in New York City for 44 years, caring for each other in sickness and in health. Because of DOMA, when Thea passed away, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and taxed Edie’s inheritance from Thea as though they were strangers.
Kris Perry and Sandy Stier of Berkeley Calif., along with other couples, took the stand on the first day of the trial to tell the world what marriage means to them, and why marriage matters.
The face of love took the stand to break down the myths, lies, and distortions about same-sex couples who just wanted the same protections other couples have. As Americans were learning about the plaintiffs and their stories, a conversation started at dinner tables across the country, as opposition to marriage equality began to evaporate.
History will show that marriage equality was accomplished one story at a time, by personal tales that existed mostly outside the courtroom.
Among the many reasons for overturning DOMA, the most important issues facing same-sex married couples involve financial and social security. For example, if one spouse ends up in a nursing home and there isn’t enough money to pay for it, the other spouse will not be told to move out of their house so Medicaid can take it. DOMA deprived gay families of federally created economic safety nets that couples count on when they marry and that help them take care of each other and their children.
Because of DOMA, when a gay parent died, children who were dealing with the loss of a parent were further traumatized when their house had to be sold because there was not enough money to pay a 35 percent gift tax on it. The government essentially said pay up or move out.
These are some of a great many issues that are of tremendous importance to all married couples. The specific implications of the rulings won’t be fully understood until the wording of the historic decisions is examined. For now, it’s time for celebration.
