Prime Day

Como cliente Amazon Prime obtén 3 meses de Audible gratis

Diseño de la portada del título United States v. Windsor

United States v. Windsor

Muestra
Ahorros de temporada
0,99 € al mes durante los primeros 3 meses
Comenzar mi suscripción
Oferta válida hasta el 28 de diciembre de 2026.
Ahorra más del 90% en tus primeros 3 meses.
Escucha todo lo que quieras de entre miles de audiolibros y Originals incluidos.
Descarga tu audiolibro y escucha offline, sin interrupciones
Se renueva automáticamente por 9,99 €/mes después de 3 meses. Cancela mensualmente. La oferta termina el 28 de diciembre de 2026.

United States v. Windsor

De: The Supreme Court of the United States
Narrado por: uncredited
Comenzar mi suscripción

Se renueva automáticamente por 9,99 €/mes después de 3 meses. Cancela mensualmente. La oferta termina el 28 de diciembre de 2026.

Compra ahora por 6,05 €

Compra ahora por 6,05 €

Ahorros de temporada | 0,99 € al mes durante los primeros 3 meses

9,99 €/mes después. Se aplican condiciones. Cancela mensualmente.
Acerca de este título

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that, for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Since that time, some states have authorized same-sex marriage. In other cases regarding the DOMA, federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, but the courts have disagreed on the rationale. Edith Windsor is the widow and sole executor of the estate of her late spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, who died in 2009. The two were married in Toronto, Canada, in 2007, and their marriage was recognized by New York state law. Thea Syper left her estate to her spouse, and because their marriage was not recognized by federal law, the government imposed $363,000 in taxes. Had their marriage been recognized, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. At the time the suit was filed, the government’s position was that DOMA must be defended. On February 23, 2011, the President and the Attorney General announced that they would not defend DOMA. On April 18, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives filed a petition to intervene in defense of DOMA and motioned to dismiss the case. The district court denied the motion, and later held that DOMA was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

Public Domain (P)2014 Oyez, Inc
Ciencias políticas Política y gobierno
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No hay reseñas aún