Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our statement of belief
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' donated essays
Our forum
New essays
Other site features
Hot, controversial topics
Vital notes

World religions
Definition of Christianity
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Bible Interpreting
 Individuals in the Bible
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation & 666
WICCA & Witchcraft
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Compare Faiths

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods and Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
10 Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty
Environment/Climate change

Gay marriages

Human rights
Gays in military
Sex & gender
Spanking kids
Same-Sex marriages
Stem cells
Women's rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news


Religious Tolerance logo

"United States v. Windsor"
lawsuit: The U.S. Supreme Court
finds part of federal DOMA law ruled unconstitutional.

2013-JUN to SEP: Changes for binational, married
couples. Subsequent lawsuits triggered by Windsor.

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

The acronym "SSM" refers to "same-sex marriage."
The acronym "DOMA" refers to the federal Defense of Marriage Act
"SCOTUS" refers to the Supreme Court of the United States

horizontal rule

This topic is continued from the previous essay

horizontal rule

Concerning binational, married same-sex couples:

DOMA had severely disadvantaged binational, married same-sex couples, where one partner is an American citizen, and the other is from another country. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on 2013-JUN-26, the law prevented the federal government from recognizing such couples as married. Julian Marsh and Traian Povov were such a couple. However, two days after the Supreme Court overturned part of the DOMA law, the couple received the first "green card" issued to a binational same-sex married couple. The couple's lawyer said:

"The approval of this petition demonstrates that the Obama administration’s commitment to recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages after the Supreme Court ruling is now a reality on the ground. We expect additional approvals of green card applications and petitions in the coming days." 1

Elise Foley, a reporter for Huffington Post wrote:

"Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling doesn't entirely fix the problem -- couples must be married rather than partners, and must travel to a state that allows same-sex marriage if they don't live in one -- but it's still a major victory for LGBT rights. ..."

"Some of those binational couples have lived apart for months or even years because the foreign-born spouse can't legally remain in the country. Others must worry about whether they will lose their job and work visa, then be separated. Still others stay in the U.S. without legal status and risk deportation to be with their spouse. Some Americans just leave the country entirely when their partner cannot stay." 1

horizontal rule

Subsequent lawsuits linked to this U.S. Supreme Court ruling:

A flood of lawsuits were triggered, inspired, and/or influenced by Justice Kennedy's DOMA ruling on 2013-JUN-26 in Windsor v. United States. They totaled at least 15 during the first month alone:

  • The national office of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its state affiliates have active cases underway in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

  • The ACLU joined with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) to file a case in New Mexico.

  • Lambda Legal has a case in Arizona concerned with health coverage.

  • Lambda and the ACLU had separate cases in Illinois which have been consolidated into one. They intend to file a case in Virginia shortly.

  • Jackson v. Abercrombie a lawsuit attempting to legalize SSM in Hawaii -- was being appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when the U.S. Supreme Court rulings were released. The Supreme Court's DOMA ruling in Windsor v. United States is expected to have a major impact on Jackson.

  • A very similar lawsuit from Nevada, Sevcik v Sandoval, was also being appealed to the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals and is expected to be significantly impacted by Windsor.

  • Lawsuits filed by lawyers on behalf of their clients are also known to exist in Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.

On 2013-JUL-18, about three weeks after the DOMA decision was released, after having wasting $2.3 million on a hopeless effort to defend the clearly unconstitutional federal DOMA law and thus preserve discrimination against same-sex married couples, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) threw in the towel. They wrote a brief in the Tracey Cooper-Harris v. United States case, saying:

"The Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality. The Windsor decision necessarily resolves the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality in this case. While the question of whether 38 U.S.C. § 101(3), (31) is constitutional remains open, the House has determined, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Windsor, that it no longer will defend that statute. Accordingly, the House now seeks leave to withdraw as a party defendant." 2

BLAG was a bipartisan group in name only. While it was composed of three Republicans and two Democrats. To our knowledge, the vote on every decision that the group made was 3 to 2, along strict party lines.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

Information on specific lawsuits:

  • New Mexico: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico, ACLU national, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), a legal group, and some attorneys filed a Writ of Mandamus with the New Mexico State Supreme Court. They asked the court to rule on two issues:
    • Whether same-sex couples can marry in the state and
    • Whether the state recognizes same-sex marriages solemnized in other states.

State recognition of same-sex marriages is needed so that such couples are eligible for the 1,138 federal marriage benefits and protections that are now available to married same-sex couples as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision on 2013-JUN-26 which declared Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. More details.

  • Ohio: Two gays flew from Cincinnati OH to Maryland, were married in the airplane while on the tarmac, and flew back to Ohio on the same day. They launched a lawsuit during 2013-JUL in federal court to have their marriage recognized in Ohio. Ohio does not allow first cousins to marry, but recognizes marriages by first cousins if they are solemnized out of state. Ohio does not allow minors to marry, but recognizes marriages by minors if they are solemnized out of state. Ohio does not allow same-sex couples to marry, and it refuses to recognize marriages by same-sex couples made out of state. More details.

  • Oklahoma: Two lesbian couples filed a lawsuit in federal District Court in 2004, shortly after voters in the state amended the Oklahoma constitution to ban same-sex marriage. In a disgraceful response by the federal courts, essentially no action has been taken on the case in the nine years that have passed since filing. Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin are one couple; they are challenging Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage. The other couple is Susan Bartn and Gay Phillips who were married in California and now reside in Oklahoma. They are challenging two sections of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that have not (yet) been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

    Spurred by the federal DOMA ruling, on JUL-29, Don Holladay -- the couples' lawyer -- filed a brief stating, in part, that the Supreme Courts DOMA reading:
  • "... provides clear and explicit guidance for concluding Oklahoma's marriage ban violates both (the couple's) fundamental right to marry, and the exercise of liberties inherent in such fundamental right."

The brief urges U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern to issue a ruling. It also points out that:

"Only a constitutional removal of Oklahoma's marriage ban ... will provide same-sex couples in Oklahoma all the federal benefits and responsibilities that are available now in 13 states and the District of Columbia."

The U.S. Justice Department has expressed an interest in filing a response to Holladay's brief. They have been given until AUG-24 to do this. 3 More details

  • Pennsylvania: Twenty-one plaintiffs launched a lawsuit during 2013-JUL called "Whitewood v. Corbett" in federal District Court. The intent is to force Pennsylvania to allow same-sex marriage in the state and to recognize same-sex marriages legally solemnized out-of-state. More details

horizontal rule

This topic continues in the next essay

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. "Gay Couple Receives Green Card After Supreme Court Ruling: DOMA Project," The Huffington Post, 2013-JUN-29, at:
  2. Shannon Argueta, "House GOP Concedes Victory And Announce They Will No Longer Defend DOMA ," Addicting Info,
  3. Chris Casteel, "Supreme Court decision bolsters challenge to Oklahoma gay marriage ban, couple argues in state case," NewsOK, 2013-JUL-31, at:

horizontal rule

Site navigation:

Home > Religious info. > Basic > Marriage > SSM > SSM menu > DOMA > Unconstitutional > Windsor v. U.S. > here

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality > SSM > SSM menu > DOMA > Unconstitutional > Windsor v. U.S. > here

Home > Rel. info. > Basic > Marriage > SSM menu > SSM submenu > here

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality> SSM menu > SSM submenu > here

horizontal rule

Copyright © 2013 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally posted: 2013-JUN-28
Latest update: 2013-SEP-06
Compiler: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or to "Windsor v. U.S." menu, or to the "Same-sex marriage" menu, or choose:


Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Hot, controversial topics

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.


Sponsored links