Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Edith Windsor Speaks

A wide-ranging interview with the crusader to end DOMA

Print Email
Edith Windsor(WaPo)

Edith Windsor, who is chief among the many central Jewish figures involved in the Supreme Court case to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, is featured in the weekend Times interview.

In it, she talks about the Clintons, Senator Rob Portman’s change of heart, her lawyer Roberta Kaplan (subject of a stellar Allison Hoffman profile here), feminism, gay men, and her case, which the Supreme Court is due to rule on in the coming weeks.

But here were a few of my favorite parts including Windsor’s retraction of her opposition to topless protesting. Enjoy!

Do you have any kind of celebration planned if you win?

I want to have a street party, that’s all I know. I am going to be one of the grand marshals in the gay-pride parade.

Did you participate in the Dyke March the day before gay pride?

Well, I loved it, I thought it was great. I sang with them. Some went topless. I used to wish they would put on clothes. I was once saying something about disliking some of the extreme stuff to a straight friend, and she said, “Edie, somebody has to keep pushing the envelope.” I said: “I think you’re right. I apologize for everything I thought.”

Related: Gay Marriage’s Legal Crusader [Tablet]
Earlier: The Jewish Women in the DOMA Case
Edith Windsor Takes Back What She Said About Topless Gay Activists [NYT]

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

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.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at 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.

silverbackV says:

More “wrongs” in this world will not help! Multiplied “wrongs” will never make a “right!” Keep DOMA intact. The Torah hasn’t changed!

    oaklandj says:

    Torah hasn’t changed. Our interpretations have grown up.
    Torah is also pretty clear about false prophets, too. Just thought you’d like to know.

      silverbackV says:

      Your interpretation may have changed, but the Torah interpretation has not. YHWY says some things about folks that take his word lightly too. Just in case you are interested.

        jhr459 says:

        No, the Torah has not changed and that is perhaps a topic for another discussion – but the important thing to keep in mind is that this is a secular issue and not a religious one even though many conservative Jews and Christians would like to make it so. This country was founded on separation of church(shul) and state and that needs to be the salient factor. Also, it wouldn’t hurt to remember that we dealt with this issue of dealing with being persecuted for who we were for many, many years-the most egregious example 70 years ago. So, as has been said many times, if you don’t agree with gay marriage, then don’t have one, but don’t try and deny me my constitutional rights based on your religious views.

          silverbackV says:

          The separation of Church and State is to prevent the State from mandating the Church, NOT to prevent the Church from advising the State of when it is out of bounds. There is no secular, there is obedience and there is rebellion.

          jhr459 says:

          Interesting that you have decided to rewrite history. The founding fathers set up the separation to protect religion AND secular society. This was based on reflections of what religion had done to societies in Europe and was a this religious incursion was a big reason for the original move to the ‘new’ country, so that the religion in force could not determine all religions.

          silverbackV says:

          Interesting that you are pontificating on something you know nothing about. Please read the Constitution, if you do, you will find no mention of any separation. No founding father ever mentioned separation except Jefferson in a private letter. It was intended to prevent state dominated religion, i.e. “The Church of England.”


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Edith Windsor Speaks

A wide-ranging interview with the crusader to end DOMA

More on Tablet:

Klinghoffer at the Met

By Paul Berman — John Adams’s masterpiece is about an American Jew murdered by Palestinian terrorists, but the real opera is off stage