Search

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have upheld and expanded gay rights, but the question of how these decisions will impact the wideranging diversity among sexual minorities has yet to be determined. This paper focuses on the impact of these decisions on the State of Gay in the U.S., including those from an array of demographic, ethnic, socioeconomic, and cultural affiliations. The United States v. Windsor (570 U.S. 2013) and Hollingsworth, et al., v. Kristin M. Perry (570 U.S. 2013) decisions are also considered within the context of the global community, both how they were influenced by and how these court findings will in turn broadly impact these cultures. How these decisions were rooted within the context of marriage reform legislation in the 1970s, and how heterosexuals may well be significant beneficiaries of the rulings, is also discussed. The paper concludes with a dialogue on the paths toward continued legal, societal, and political reform within a global context, and how congruence between the State of Gay and Human Rights can be more fully realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in United States v. Windsor (570 U.S. -- 2013). The ruling advanced gay rights by striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and instating federal benefits to same-sex married couples. The ruling has widespread economic benefits for legally married same-sex couples including health insurance, flexspending accounts, Social Security benefits, federal taxes, and veterans'benefits. Framed within a global context, this article analyzes the economic implications of United States v. Windsor and the subsequent implementation of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Rule 17 (Rev. Rul. 2013-17) by conducting a cost-benefit analysis of a state with marriage equality compared to a state prohibiting same-sex marriage. Findings indicate, despite the Supreme Court ruling, there is an unequal distribution of costs and benefits across states based on same-sex marriage. If all Americans are to receive equal treatment under the law, then all 50 states and Washington D.C. must comport with federal law and legalize same-sex marriage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. court case Hollingsworth, et al., v. Kristin M. Perry which refers to the legalization of same-sex marriage in California. It mentions that the case was related to the Proposition 8 in the State of California which is created by opponents of same-sex marriage. It notes the importance of social movements to the LGBT community as Proposition 8 would not have been defeated if these movements were not involved.