United States v. Windsor

As Americans, we love our freedom. We claim to be the land of the free because men and women are free to do as they please and have freedoms that many other countries do not. Many immigrants dream of coming to America because we have a government that does not seek to control what people do or say. Or at least, we would like to think so. It is the job of the government to protect the rights of its citizens by upholding the laws of the United States Constitution.

For the last few decades there have been issues with U.S. lawmakers infringing on the rights of citizens. Our government officials create laws to help keep people safe and to help safeguard their rights. When a person or group of people’s choices negatively affect other citizens, the government will pass laws to protect those rights. When making laws, the government’s ultimate goal is balancing the duty to protect its people, while ensuring their rights are protected.

However, sometimes those laws do interfere with a citizen’s rights as an American.

In 2007 Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada and their marriage was recognized by New York state law. In 2009, Clara Spyer passed away and made Edith Windsor the sole trustee of her estate, but since their marriage was not recognized by federal law, the government imposed $363,000 in taxes on the estate. This was all due to an act called DOMA, better known as the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified

Proficient in: Gay Marriage

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The act defined marriage as the joining of one man and one woman in wedlock and was specifically established into deny same-sex couples the benefits and recognition that would be typically given to opposite-sex couples. DOMA also mandated that states banning same-sex marriage were not required to recognize legitimate same-sex marriages even if the marriage was carried out in other states (Kelley, 2018). DOMA blocked same-sex couples from their freedom of even having the choice to get married. 

The act would come under scrutiny in the Supreme Court case of the United States v. Windsor. Windsor initially filed suit in district court to prove that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violated the constitutional requirement of equality, and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married same-sex couples for the purpose of determining federal benefits (United States, n.d.). Had Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer’s marriage been recognized by federal law, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. Although there have been many laws in which interfered with a citizen’s rights, lawmakers have made efforts in many other cases that benefit citizens and protect their rights.

As we know marriage is defined as the legal or recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (Marriage, n.d.). Historically speaking, marriages were specifically a union between a man and a woman. As the idea of marriage has vastly changed over the years, modern societies see marriage as a stabilizing force in their relationships that seals their commitment in a bond. So, in 2015 14 same-sex couples filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home states and claimed that state officials violated their 14th Amendment by denying them the right to marry (Obergefell, n.d.). Due to their actions the case of Obergefell v. Hodges was established. Later that year the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage would be legal in all 50 states. This meant that the 14 states which refused to marry same-sex couples could no longer do so nor could they refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. Following the decision by the Supreme Court, same-sex couples in those affected states rushed to get married on the next day. This was a huge success for the LGBT community because heterosexual couples have always been afforded the right to legal marriage, but on June 26, 2015, same same-sex couples were now among those ranks. In the last decade the LQBT community has made some major strides spreading awareness about gender fluidity, and sexual orientation. Now that society has shifted from a traditional way of thinking to a more free thinking society, the LGBT community can better express themselves by standing up to lawmakers and demanding the rights they deserve.

I understand it can be complicated for lawmakers to come to a consensus and make decisions. However, there are many different ways that we could attempt to resolve the battle between the laws rights. What must happen first is the government has to understand the needs of the people in which they represent. Since we are the ones who elect those government positions, they have no power besides that that is even to them by us. As U.S. citizens, our voices should be heard and our rights should be considered when it comes to policy and law making. One possible way to improve the battle is to have the citizens vote for major laws which impact the people of the United States. I mean, we are in the year 2020 and with all the advanced technologies we have at our fingertips, we could potentially use an app on our phones to vote. That way the citizens of the United States maintain the power of how we are governed. 

However, the ramifications to that could include the voting system possibly being hacked as we witnessed in the 2016 election. Also, not everyone has the capability to make smart, educated decisions. Their decision may be tied to emotions and a large amount of people making emotional decisions that affect the country could greatly skew the outcome. Another possible solution is that we can improve the current system we have by making it easier to contact our mayor’s and governor’s offices. They always say to write a letter to your governor’s office, but again, we are in 2020. We can use our advanced technology to set up face-to-face meetings via teleconferencing or things of that nature. The possible ramifications to that would be that the mayor’s or governor’s schedule would be overloaded with virtual meetings on top of his normal agenda.