Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in U. S. v. Windsor
What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
—Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan (June 26, 2013)
From the Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Kennedy:
DOMA’s [Defense of Marriage Act] principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. . . .
What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. . . .
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Thank you, Edie Windsor; we’re sure your Thea is smiling on you today, as she has every day.
Listening List
Ring of Keys, from Fun Home.
Credits
The photograph at the head of the post may be found here. The remaining quotations are from the Majority Opinion in U.S. v. Windsor. The entire decision may be found here.
Prufrock's Dilemma 
Dear Sue,
I’m so glad! Interesting background by ‘Opinion of the Court’ – thank you. I shared it on Facebook – will make many of my friends happy (though in Germany on this topic the Law was earlier progressive).
Britta: It is quite a breakthrough, though the ruling does not confer the right to marry nationwide, but rather strikes down the federal law (DOMA) that prevented federal recognition of marriages recognized by states that allow for it. So, there is more to be done. I’m unclear about what the situation is in Germany. (What I see is a status that is marriage-like, but without full rights, and that direct conferring of the right to marry has so far been defeated.)
Oh, yes, another wave. It hopes its ripples one day find these distant shores. Congrats, und hallelujah indeed.
wanderer: Another wave, indeed–though we have not achieved here what the Kiwis did in April, as yet. (For those who may not know about it, here is a link to wanderer’s post: http://iamaliminalbeing.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-waves-are-breaking.html.) Still, quite a victory. May Australia take note, and come on board soon!
I just heard it on the news and now I find it here.
It’s a big step in the right direction, let’s hope other steps towards complete equality will follow suit.
Congratulations for now.
Friko: Yes, let’s hope. It is certainly a big step, but more to go.
I hadn’t come across this particular case, but thank you for highlighting the particulars. Let’s hope the bigger hurdles will be overcome. It’s only a matter of time – but how long, oh lord, how long? Meanwhile, I cringe about our own church’s shilly-shallying, disappointed though not surprised in Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and amused to find an American nun reacting to the news that loving same-sex clergy can be acknowledged but must remain celibate: ‘It’s like being told you’re a bird, but you can’t fly’. It only takes a simple simile like that to point out how ridiculous and unjust it is.
And across Europe, the decrees on same-sex marriage allow the old bigotry to flourish again. It all happens so quickly. Look at France.
I’m such an idiot! This is the Big One. I read it here first. Now I’ve corrected my stupidity by reading all the news I could get my hands on – including an achingly wonderful picture chronicle of Edie and Thea’s life together.
Again, when put like that by the judge, the opposition just seems daft and cruel.
David: The picture chronicle you found is terrific (it’s here, for anyone who hasn’t seen it: http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/edith-windsor-and-thea-spyers-great-american-love-story), and the movie about Thea and Edie it references is wonderful as well). I was astounded by the sweep of Justice Kennedy’s rationale for the decision, so remarkably focused on the human costs, rather than resting, as he might have done, solely on technical legal points. And yet Kennedy was also in the majority in gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a day or so before the Windsor decision came down (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?hp)! It’s hard to fathom, isn’t it?
Hooray!!!
Mark K: Yes, indeed.
Politically, I do not belong to the left. I do not belong to the right. I am a card-carrying member of the Fiercely Independent Party.
To anyone who would flame me for what I’m about to say: My grandfather was a World War II Navy Seabee who assisted the Manhattan project deploy the atomic bombs on Tinian. My wife’s grandfather was a Seabee who was wounded on the beach on Iwo Jima and paid for it the rest of his life, as did his son. My father served in the Air Force Strategic Air Command. My family has paid its dues for this country.
Far too often this country has demonstrated that it’s forgotten who we are and what we are all about. I look at what’s going on at the local, state, national, and international levels and cringe.
Today, for once, we as a nation got it right. There’s hope for us yet.
Mark S.: Well stated. I only wish the court had gotten it right on the Voting Rights Act as well.
You can say that again.