Gay Marriage: The End Of Doma

 

Earlier today, The US Supreme Court Announced that it will hear a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Windsor v. U.S., as well as the California Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.  This means a ruling on DOMA’s fate – as well as on marriages in California – is expected in June 2013. At long last, the end of two heinous laws that have impacted so many of our families is within sight, and within reach.

We don’t have to tell you what DOMA’s demise will mean. For LGBT binational couples, it is DOMA that is responsible for denied green cards, family separations and exile abroad. The end cannot come soon enough. At long last, however, we now know when the end may be here.

We know DOMA is unconstitutional. We are optimistic the high court will agree. Our friends at the ACLU (and their counsel at the law firm of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and Garrison LLP, who also serve as counsel on Immigration Equality's DOMA Lawsuit) are exceptional lawyers, and we have full faith in their ability to convince the court this law must fall.  If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, gay and lesbian Americans may be able to sponsor their foreign partners for immigration benefits shortly thereafter.

We know that, even with the end of DOMA potentially so nearby, many of you cannot wait 6 months for relief. That’s why we’re continuing to push for passage of the Uniting American Families Act – including as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill that’s expected to be introduced early next year.  It’s also why we’re asking the Obama Administration to immediately stop denying green card applications filed by our families, and hold them until the Supreme Court rules.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether California's Proposition 8 marriage amendment is constitutional and whether the federal government can refuse to recognize gay couples' marriages for tax purposes and other reasons, the court announced Friday.

The long-awaited announcement, first reported by SCOTUSblog, puts Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines "marriage" and "spouse" in all federal laws as being limited to marriages between one man and one woman, squarely before the nine justices in the case of Edith Windsor.

The court also accepted the request by the supporters of California's Proposition 8 that the justices hear an appeal of that case, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law as unconstitutional.

In addition to the questions about whether the laws are constitutional, the court has asked the parties to respond to questions about "standing," a constitutional limit on who can bring a case before the court because of a constitutional limit that courts only can hear actual "cases and controversies." If a party doesn't have standing to bring an appeal, the court cannot hear an appeal.

Windsor sued in 2010 after she was forced to pay more than $350,000 in estate taxes after the death of her wife, Thea Spyer. Had either Windsor or Spyer been a man, her lawyers Windsor would not have had to pay the tax on the estate. Windsor's case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, with lead attorney Roberta Kaplan having successfully argued before the First Circuit Court of Appeals for Windsor.

The court takes on consideration of DOMA's constitutionality after two federal appeals courts have declared it to be unconstitutional this year. A handful of other federal trial court judges have concurred, and two of those cases also were presented as possible options for the court.

The court takes on Proposition 8 after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared it to be unconstitutional. The challenge was brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and has been led by lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies.

The court likely will hear arguments on the challenges in March and generally decides all pending cases by the end of June of any year.