Una sentencia cuestiona la constitucionalidad de la prohibición del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo

¿Por qué a las parejas del mismo sexo, legalmente casadas en su estado, no se les conceden los mismos beneficios federales que a las parejas heterosexuales? Un juez federal de Massachusetts abordó recientemente esta cuestión en sus sentencias sobre dos casos. En el primer caso dictaminó que el Ley de Defensa del Matrimonio es inconstitucional porque vulnera el derecho de los Estados a regular el matrimonio. En el segundo caso, dictaminó que la actual definición federal del matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer viola la disposición de la Constitución sobre la igualdad de protección.

Aunque es probable que Sentencias del juez Tauro 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 Tauro’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.

Enlaces:
Texto del proyecto de ley 104º Congreso (1995-1996) H.R.3396.ENR
Un juez tumba el rechazo de EE.UU. a las uniones homosexuales