Editing Defense of Marriage Act (section)

===''United States v. Windsor''===
{{Main|United States v. Windsor}}
On November 9, 2010, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] filed ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' in New York on behalf of a surviving same-sex spouse whose inheritance from her deceased spouse had been subject to federal taxation as if they were unmarried.<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us/09marriage.html |first=John |last=Schwartz |title=Gay Couples to Sue Over U.S. Marriage Law |date=November 8, 2010 |access-date=February 23, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Widow's $363,000 Tax Bill Led to Obama Shift on Marriage Act |author=Andrew M. Harris |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/a-363-000-tax-bill-to-widow-led-to-obama-shift-in-defense-of-marriage-act.html |newspaper=Bloomberg Businessweek |date=February 28, 2011 |access-date=July 31, 2011}}</ref> New York is part of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]], where no precedent exists for the standard of review to be followed in sexual-orientation discrimination cases.

New York Attorney General [[Eric Schneiderman]] filed a brief supporting Windsor's claim on July 26, 2011.<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/new-york-attorney-general-take.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=New York Attorney General Takes Edith Windsor's Side in DOMA Challenge |date=July 26, 2011 |access-date=July 27, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110806181726/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/new-york-attorney-general-take.html |archive-date=August 6, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>[[File:Mommy, Mama and Baby Georgie (9181858236).jpg|thumb|Same-sex couple celebrating legal victory at San Francisco Pride 2013]]

On June 6, 2012, Judge [[Barbara S. Jones|Barbara Jones]] ruled that based on rational basis review Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the requested tax refund be paid to Windsor. The plaintiff commented, "It's thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers."<ref>{{cite web |work=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/another-federal-judge-finds-doma-marriage-definiti.html |first=Chris |last=Geidner |title=Another Federal Judge Finds DOMA Marriage Definition Unconstitutional, Now in Widow's Case |date=June 6, 2012 |access-date=June 6, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120607051055/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/another-federal-judge-finds-doma-marriage-definiti.html |archive-date=June 7, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Windsor's attorneys filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 16, asking for the case to be considered without waiting for the Second Circuit's review.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Metro Weekly |url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/widow-petitions-doma-case-to-the-supreme-court.html |first=Justin |last=Snow |title=Widow Petitions DOMA Case to the Supreme Court |date=July 16, 2012 |access-date=July 16, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722133026/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/widow-petitions-doma-case-to-the-supreme-court.html |archive-date=July 22, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On October 18, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|last=Baynes|first=Terry|title=Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-appeal-idUSBRE89H12L20121018|access-date=October 18, 2012|newspaper=[[Reuters]]|date=October 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name=2ndCir>{{cite web|title=Windsor v. USA |url=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf |publisher=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] |access-date=October 18, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130108041134/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf |archive-date=January 8, 2013 }}</ref> According to an ACLU press release, this ruling was "the first federal appeals court decision to decide that government discrimination against gay people [[Intermediate scrutiny|gets a more exacting level of judicial review]]".<ref>{{cite news|publisher=ACLU Press Release|title=Federal Appeals Court Declares "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional|url=https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/federal-appeals-court-declares-defense-marriage-act-unconstitutional|access-date = July 25, 2013}}</ref> In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated:<ref>{{cite news|last=Weiss|first=Debra Cassens|title=2nd Circuit Rules for Surviving Gay Spouse, Says DOMA Violates Equal Protection Clause|url=http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/2nd_circuit_rules_for_surviving_gay_spouse_seeking_estate_tax_deduction_in_/|access-date=18 October 2012|newspaper=ABA Journal|date=18 October 2012}}</ref>

<blockquote>Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition, but law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status—however fundamental—and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples.</blockquote>

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.<ref>{{cite news| first = Jonathan | last = Stempel | title = Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases in late March | work = Reuters| date = January 7, 2013 | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE9060N820130107| access-date=January 7, 2013}}</ref> In a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."<ref name="Opinion" />{{rp|25}}

On July 18, 2013, the [[Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group]] (BLAG), which had mounted a defense of Section 3 when the administration declined to, acknowledged that in ''Windsor'' "[t]he Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3's constitutionality" and said "it no longer will defend that statute."<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=House Republicans Cave On Marriage Fight |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/house-republicans-cave-on-marriage-fight |access-date=July 18, 2013|newspaper=BuzzFeed |date=July 18, 2013}}</ref>