History Brief Windsor V. Us

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996. Section 3 of DOMA specifically prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages by defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” As a result, same-sex married couples could not receive any of the federal benefits that opposite-sex married couples do, such as federal tax benefits, immigration status, and Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court of the United States has before them a great decision to make in the case of United States v. Windsor. This will set precedent in United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. The court will deliberate on the section of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This historic ruling will mark a monumental step, whether backwards or forwards, in the marriage equality movement.
This case is a landmark in the identification of the rights of homosexuals and homosexual couples. The rights of homosexuals have always been denied and restricted on many accounts, but in recent times have already made the steps to reject DOMA. Since DOMA sates that marriage is an agreement between a man and a women, it gives no innate right to homosexual unions in federal law. By looking at history we can easily define marriage, its evolution in the eyes of state and federal law and prove that
Only in the early twentieth century did the ideal of the homosexual as a distinct, separate category of person emerge, and only in the twentieth century did the state begin to classify and penalize citizens on the basis of their identity or status as homosexuals. The States enacted discriminatory policies in the 1920s, but such measures and other forms of anti-gay harassment reached a peak in the twenty years following World War II, when government agencies systematically discriminated against homosexuals. [1]
But this discrimination can be connected to other discrimination at the time. In principal the federal government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages violates the right to marry, brought on by the case of Loving v. Virginia. Loving invalidated state laws prohibiting different race marriages creating African Americans’ right to equal protection and interracial couples’ due process right to marry. Before this people and marriages where classified as classes of “black” and “white”; just as they classify them as “Homosexual” and “heterosexual.”
Loving v. Virginia was a momentous step in the United States institution of marriage, which changed how all the federal government viewed marriage. The court even defined marriage as “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people.”[2] Before this case, interracial marriages were illegal in forty states, while only thirty-five states ban same sex marriage in some regards.
Many other court cases have defined marriage as a basic right and privilege of both a man and citizen of the United States. In Zablocki v. Redhail the court had stated that’s marriage was “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’.” They even went as far as to say that “the right to marry is part of the fundamental ‘right to privacy’.”[3] If marriage is the basic right and a right of privacy, why is it still barred or restricted for some individuals?
Laws have also been placed that created a freedom of marriage through acts that allow “prison inmates from marrying while in prison.”[4]. or that the state “cannot forbid a person with outstanding support obligations from remarrying.”[3] This array of rulings has already created a freedom of marriage, just as the amendments have created a right to privacy. By refusing to allow same-sex couples have legal rights in their relationships; states violate same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry, a position which is just as irrational as previous state action prohibiting different race marriages. [1]
In the early 1970’s there were zero sates which allowed or denied the right of same sex marriages, in there constitution (not state statues). As time and legislation progressed, the number of same sex marriage bans increased, mainly during the late nineteen- ninety’s and early two-thousands’. This stigma surrounding same sex marriages and civil unions predominantly turned to legal action after the signing and enacting of DOMA. [6]

The federal government has already made steps to provide homosexuals with rights and equal protection under the law. President Clinton placed legislation and executive orders “banning discrimination in the federal workplace on the basis of sexual orientation” [7] and “barring the use of sexual orientation as a criterion for determining security clearance.” [8]. Federal rights were even given to spouses of civil union couples whose partner was a fire-fighter or police officer during 9/11, by President Bush; the same rights that United States v. Windsor is fighting for. This right of benefits would extend to same sex families in the military, since the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The gay rights movement is also a small minority with only 1% of the congressional legislators being openly homosexual. To voice their opinion legislative and legal action must be taken to provide equal protection. This case will make a major turning point in homosexual rights and a shift of American culture.
The Court now has a decision to make on the case of homosexual marriage, whether it will grant rights and strengthen the freedom of marriage or restrict them. The states of America have already spoken and taken the steps to homosexual equality and rights. History has shown that homosexual marriage and marriage, and the benefits entitled to it, as a whole have changed over time and that it is a fundamental right as a citizen of the United States.

[1] Eskridge, William. “Partners Task Force .” Partners Task Force. http://buddybuddy.com/eskridg1.html (accessed December 16, 2013).
[2] Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S.
[3] Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
[4] Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
[6]Garvin, Patrick. “Nation.” BostonGlobe.com. http://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/06/26/same-sex-marriage-over-time/mbVFMQPyxZCpM2eSQMUsZK/story.html (accessed December 12, 2013).
[7] Exec. Order No. 13,087, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,097
[8] Exec. Order No. 12,968, 60 Fed. Reg. 40,245
*