Equal Treatment under the Law: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Same-Sex Benefits Post- Windsor

Abstract

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, flex-spending 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.