This artist rendering shows Attorney Theodore Olsen, right, representing the same-sex couples, addresses the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 26, 2013, as the court heard arguments on California's ban on same-sex marriage. Justices, from left are, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)
(CBS NEWS)-- Edie Windsor, the 83-year-old lesbian who sued the United States government for discriminatory treatment under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), expressed optimism today that the Supreme Court will strike down the 17-year old law.
"I think it went beautifully," Windsor said from outside of the court after today's oral arguments in United States v. Windsor. "I thought the justices were gentle... they were direct, they asked all the right questions, but I didn't feel any hostility or any sense of inferiority. I felt we were very respected, and I think it's going to be good."
Windsor sued the government because under DOMA, it did not recognize her marriage to her late partner, Thea Spyer.
DOMA, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Both the First and Second Circuit Court of appeals have struck down a provision of the law (called Section 3) that denies federal benefits, like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns, to same-sex couples legally married. Because of these lower court rulings, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in some regions of the country but not others.
After living together in New York for more than four decades, Windsor and Spyer finally married in 2007, when Spyer became seriously ill. When Spyer died in 2009, she left Windsor her estate. Because DOMA didn't recognize their marriage -- even though the state of New York did -- the IRS hit Windsor with $363,053 in estate taxes.
In today's oral arguments, the a majority of justices sounded skeptical of the law, according to CBS News' Jan Crawford. The justices, however, gave different rationales for their conclusion -- Justice Anthony Kennedy, for instance, focused on the concept of federalism, while the liberals on the court focused on the concept of equal protection under the law.
Windsor's attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued Windsor's case before the court today, echoed her client's simple assessment of how the arguments went: "I think it was good."
"We are very hopeful they will affirm the decision of the courts below," Kaplan said, declining to make any predictions.
© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.