US ruling is victory for gay rights advocates
Court rules that married gay men and women are eligible for federal benefits
Michael Knaapen (left) and his husband John Becker, both of Wisconsin, react to the ruling at the US Supreme Court. The court recognised that married gay men and women are eligible for federal benefits and paved the way for same-sex marriage in California. Photograph: James Lawler Duggan/Reuters
Gay rights supporters await the US Supreme Court’s decision at City Hall, San Francisco. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Oscar Soto wraps a rainbow flag around his shoulders while waiting for a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, June 26, 2013. The court ruled Wednesday that the 1996 law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples is unconstitutional, in a sign of how rapidly the national debate over gay rights has shifted. (Christopher Gregory/The New York Times)
Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington today after the court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Photograph: Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
The US Supreme Court today handed a significant victory to gay rights advocates by recognising that married gay men and women are eligible for federal benefits and paving the way for same-sex marriage in California.
The court, however, fell short of a landmark ruling endorsing a fundamental right for gay people to marry.
The two cases, both decided on 5-4 votes, concerned the constitutionality of a key part of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma), that denied benefits to same-sex married couples and a California state law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.
Gay marriage is an issue that stirs cultural, religious and political passions in the United States as elsewhere. Gay marriage advocates celebrated outside the courthouse. An enormous cheer went up as word arrived that Doma had been struck down. “Doma is dead!” the crowd chanted, as couples hugged and cried.
“Our marriage has not been recognized until today,” said Patricia Lambert, (59) who held her wife, Kathy Mulvey (47). A South African, Lambert said she no longer would have to worry about being forced to leave the country if her work visa expired.
The court struck down the federal law as a violation of the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law but ducked a ruling on Proposition 8 by finding that supporters of the law did not have standing to appeal a federal district court ruling that struck the law down.
While the ruling on Doma was clearcut, questions remained about what exactly the Proposition 8 ruling will mean on the ground. There is likely to be more litigation over whether the district court ruling applies statewide.
After hearing of the California ruling outside the courthouse, Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the fight for gay marriage would head back to the states.
“We take it to the states - state by state, legislature by legislature, governor by governor, and constitutional amendment by constitutional amendment,” he said.
In the Doma case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the federal law, as passed by Congress in 1996, violated the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
Justice Kennedy, often the court’s swing vote in close decisions, also said the law imposes “a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia both wrote dissenting opinions.
Justice Roberts himself wrote the Proposition 8 opinion, ruling along procedural lines with the court split in an unusual way.
Twelve of the 50 states and the District of Columbia recognise gay marriage; more than 30 states prohibit it, and others have laws somewhere in-between.
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act limited the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal benefits. By striking down Section 3, the court cleared the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.
As a result of today’s ruling, Edith Windsor of New York, who was married to a woman and sued the government to get the federal estate tax deduction available to heterosexuals when their spouses pass away, will be able to claim a $363,000 tax refund.