Religious Values and Two Same-Sex Marriage Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 26 June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered judgment in two cases involving same-sex marriage. United States v Windsor, 570 US __, 2013 WL 3196928, No 12-307, invalidated a provision of a federal law, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for all purposes in federal law. Hollingsworth v Perry, 570 US __ , 2013 WL 3196927, No 12-144, held that the official sponsors of a California state constitutional amendment [Proposition 8 (Prop 8)], which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of state law, lacked standing to seek judicial review of a federal district court judgment that ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Both cases were decided on 5-4 votes. The Windsor case was filed by Edith Windsor, who had entered into a samesex marriage in Canada that was deemed valid in New York, where she and her partner lived. New York is one of 12 American states which, at the time of the Windsor ruling, had legalized same-sex marriage. Her same-sex spouse died in 2009 leaving Ms Windsor her entire estate. Ms Windsor’s claim for a federal estate tax exemption as the surviving ‘spouse’ was denied under Section 3 of DOMA, adopted by Congress in 1996. Ms Windsor paid the federal estate tax allegedly owing ($363,053) but filed a claim for a refund, which also was denied by the Internal Revenue Service. Ms Windsor then sued in federal court. While her suit was pending, President Obama and his Attorney General took the unusual step of announcing that the administration would no longer defend DOMA. The House of Representatives thereupon voted to allow some of their members, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), to intervene
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".