07/14/2013   English German

  Edition # 102  
San Francisco, 07-14-2013


Figure [1]: Protesters opposing proposition 8 in San Francisco, in front of City Hall. Photo: Frank Farm

Angelika In June, the Supreme Court, the highest and final legal instance in the United States, ruled on two important issues regarding gay marriage. A private citizen named Edith Windsor had filed a lawsuit against the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (short: DOMA). DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by then-president Bill Clinton, and said that individual states were no longer required to acknowledge legally granted same-sex marriages (e.g. by other states). DOMA determined a marriage to be valid only between a man and a woman and explicitly did not recognize same-sex marriages in the same way.

This put legally married same-sex partners at a disadvantage, because they were denied federal benefits like jointly-filed income tax reports, higher exemptions on inheritance tax, health insurance for family members, or surviving spouse social security. Also, U.S. immigration didn't recognize same-sex marriages, which means that same-sex spouses of legal immigrants weren't automatically granted a visa or Green Card.

Edith Windsor had married her partner Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada. Both of them were living in New York state. When Thea died, she bequeathed all of her assets to Edith, but the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) didn't recognize their marriage, which was legally granted in Canada, and Edith faced $360,000 in inheritance taxes, because she couldn't claim the spouse exemption.

Figure [2]: The well-known insurance "Allstate" is running ads pro same-sex marriage in San Francisco.

The United States Supreme Court now ruled in her favor. The judges argued that DOMA violates the "due process clause" of the 5th amendment of the Constitution. The ruling is historical and groundbreaking. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that it's now up to the individual states to legalize same-sex marriages or pass legislation against them. This is bound to lead to considerable confusion, because individual government offices apply different rules when it comes to providing benefits at the federal level.

The immigration department, for instance, will grant visas or Greencards to spouses or family members, i.e. children, regardless whether the marriage license was issued in the U.S. or in a foreign country. From previous editions of this publication, you might remember that Michael obtained his Greencard through his employer, and I received one as well, simply because I'm married to him. This benefit now extends to all legal same-sex marriages.

However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Social Security Administration are operating by different rules. Tax or social benefits are determined by the individuals' residence, which means that same-sex couples will only receive benefits in states where same-sex marriages are legal. You can easily see that there's a lot more work to be done and looming litigation until finally everyone enjoys equal rights.

The second case decided by the Supreme Court ruled over California Proposition 8 (Rundbrief 11/2008). The latter put same-sex marriages on hold in California in 2008, by defining marriage to be legal only between a man and a woman. In return, opponents immediately challenged Proposition 8 in the US District Court and judge Vaughn Walker ruled in their favor, arguing that Proposition 8 was discriminatory and hence violated the constitution of the State of California.

Alas, this did not render same-sex marriages legal in California, since government agencies and courts were waiting dutifully until the case had made its way through the higher courts. Then, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California agreed in February 2012 that Proposition 8 was violating constitutional rights, and the case went on to the highest federal court in the US, the Supreme Court. The judges there, however, dismissed the case because it wasn't the State of California filing the suit, but merely proponents of Proposition 8. The US Supreme Court decided that a lawsuit regarding the constitution of the State of California can only be filed by the State of California itself and not by a private party not officially representing the state. It thereby also voided the decision of the lower Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, because it wasn't the State of California filing that lawsuit either. What remained was the first decision at the lowest court (Perry vs. Schwarzenegger), where the court had ruled Proposition unconstitutional, and that's the reason why since end of June there's been a flurry of legal same-sex marriages throughout California. The first one of course was held in San Francisco.

RSS Feed
Mailing Liste
Impressum
Mike Schilli Monologues


Get announcements for new editions

New editions of this publication appear in somewhat random intervals. To receive a brief note when they're available in your mailbox (about once every two months on average), you can register your email on the 'usarundbrief' Google Groups list.

Your email address



All Editions:
2024 153 154 155
2023 148 149 150 151 152
2022 143 144 145 146 147
2021 138 139 140 141 142
2020 133 134 135 136 137
2019 129 130 131 132
2018 125 126 127 128
2017 120 121 122 123 124
2016 115 116 117 118 119
2015 111 112 113 114
2014 106 107 108 109 110
2013 101 102 103 104 105
2012 96 97 98 99 100
2011 91 92 93 94 95
2010 85 86 87 88 89 90
2009 79 80 81 82 83 84
2008 73 74 75 76 77 78
2007 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
2006 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
2005 54 55 56 57 58
2004 49 50 51 52 53
2003 43 44 45 46 47 48
2002 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
2001 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
2000 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1999 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1998 7 8 9 10 11 12
1997 1 2 3 4 5 6
1996 0

 

Send us a comment
We'd like to hear from you, please send us feedback if you want to comment on the content or have suggestions for future topics.

Simply write your your message into the text box below. If you'd like a response from us, please also leave your email. If you want to stay anonymous, simply put 'anonymous' into the email field. This way we'll get the message, but we have no way to respond to you.

Your email address


Message

 
Contact the authors
Latest update: 13-Jun-2014