A Federal Appeals Court Rules Against DOMA
It’s the second court to do so
A few weeks ago, Tablet senior writer and national treasure Allison Hoffman wrote about the case of Edie Windsor, an 83-year-old widow, who appeared federal appeals judges to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and “give her back the $363,053 in estate taxes she had to pay because her 2007 marriage to Thea Spyer, who died in 2009, was not recognized by the United States government.” Windsor found her fair share of allies in the Jewish community.
Her appeal has attracted support from New York state and local officials, as well as from House Democrats, but she also has the backing of Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and Hadassah, and of the Conservative and Reform movements, which argue that the act confuses civil and religious marriage, and impinges on their religious authority, already exercised, to officiate and recognize same-sex marriages.
Yesterday, a New York Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, the second such ruling against the 1996 act defining “marriage” and “spouse” as between a man and a woman.
For the first time, a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the standing of homosexuals justifies heightened scrutiny in laws like DOMA because the group meets four factors, including that they “have historically endured persecution and discrimination” and remain “a politically weakened minority.”
Next likely stop: The Supreme Court.
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.