While all the LGBT groups around the country,are celebrating and patting them selves on the back for what they consider a great victory none of them has managed to thank the person who really got this done. So I will indeed thank her here very publicly.
Thank You Edith “Edie” Windsor for your great contribution and courage to see this all through and thank you for challenging this in the courts So that so many others of us might reap the benefits Associated with your great loss.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada, under the provisions set forth in the Canadian Civil Marriage Act, in 2007. The validity of their marriage was subsequently recognized by New York under common-law principles of comity. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Because their marriage was valid under New York law, Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption forsurviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA, which provided that the term “spouse” only applies to a marriage between a man and woman. In effect, the Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor’s claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes.
On November 9, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the federal government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Windsor sought a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for “differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples without justification.” On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement from the Obama administration that agreed with the plaintiff’s position that DOMA violated the U.S. Constitution and said he would no longer defend the law in court. On April 18, 2011, Paul Clement, representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) continued defense of the law. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appealsaffirmed the decision on October 18, 2012.
BLAG and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision declaring Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional “as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.”:25
Challenging section two at the same time would have been good but now in some of the dissenting comments by a couple of Justices they think it must be challenged based on the 14th Amendment.
While I’m happy for the presidents position in all this I’m sure the LGB___________________T community will no doubt heap all praise on him as he is their hero.
Truth is he hasn’t signed one piece of legislation that helps us since he got into office,He uses executive caveat to go around congress on almost everything why didn’t he do so on D.O.M.A.
Anyway the real Hero here is Edith “Edie Windsor So kudos to you Edie from
PS here’s how really confused they are
when you look up the acronym LGBTQIA that they now bandy about here is what you find,
RankAbbr.Meaning*LGBTQIALesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual*LGBTQIALesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual*LGBTQIALesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex and Allies
A little confusing when they use it which do they mean?
Bye again Butterfly