Bergslaw.com blog

Why are same-sex couples, who are legally married in their state, not afforded the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples? A federal judge in Massachusetts recently addressed this issue in his rulings on two cases. In the first case he ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as it infringes on a state's right to regulate marriage. In the second case, he ruled that the current federal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman violates the equal-protection provision of the Constitution.

While it is likely that Judge Tauro's rulings will be appealed, they have sparked more fires in the debate over gay marriage rights. Currently, five states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. However, under federal law, these same-sex married couples are denied all federal benefits such as Social Security survivor's payments and the ability to file joint tax returns. Judge Tauror's rulings demonstrate that he believes there is no basis for the reasoning behind not allowing these couples the same rights. The legal world, as well as the political world, is split on his rulings and the rational behind them. Some lawyers do not feel that he has a legitimate argument in saying that the marriage act exceeds Congress’s powers and that marriage should be a state issue. On the political front, advocacy organizations felt this ruling was a states' rights victory in saying that it is "unconstitutional for the federal government to pass laws that supersede state authority". In the second case, the judge's argument is viewed as more legally sound as he argues that the federal definition of marriage violates the equal-protection provision of the constitution by discriminating against same-sex couples. Regardless of which stance you take on the judge's rulings, they are an essential move in keeping the gay marriage debate a legal debate based on legal reasoning, rather than an emotional, moral debate.

Legal immigrants recently caught a break when the Supreme Court ruled that they should not face automatic deportation for being convicted of minor drug offenses. Before the ruling, legal immigrants faced automatic deportation for an aggravated felony. However, the question was if minor drug charges should be considered an aggravated felony. The justices answered this question by saying that “this was not what Congress had in mind when it mandated automatic deportation for any immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony.” Instead, for minor drug cases, legal immigrants should be able to argue their case with immigration judges. This would allow the judges to not only consider the drug conviction, but also take into account other factors such as family ties and length in the United States. While the U.S. certainly does not need more individuals in our country who break the law, legal immigrants should receive the right to plead their case and stay in the country. The new ruling is only for legal immigrants; whereas illegal immigrants will still face automatic deportation. By entering the U.S. legally, they are being given a legal chance to stay in the country where they chose to live.