Search Site
Menu
Ruling Questions Constitutionality of Ban on Same Sex Marriage

Blog PhotoWhy 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.

Links:
Bill Text 104th Congress (1995-1996) H.R.3396.ENR
Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions

Contact us

Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.

Quick Contact Form

Our Offices
  • Eric Alan Berg And Associates
    5000 Bechelli Lane
    Suite 201
    Redding, California 96002
    Phone: 530-223-5100
  • Chico Office
    1050 Esplanade
    Corner at East 1st
    Chico, California 95926
Initial Consultations are Free
Testimonial
Simply the best Lawyer attainable!
My legal problems started with two felony charges against me. They spiraled into a nightmare of trouble including family court, employment issues and more felony charges brought against my wife. If it was not for Eric Berg’s experience and expertise, the outcome would have been tragic! This man and his staff worked tirelessly to help… - Robert (5 star review)
CMPA Newsletter
Learn about the California Marijuana Patients Alliance

Email *

Application for Legal Services Loans
Apply NowThis is an independent service not affiliated with Eric Alan Berg & Associates.