Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2013

Abstract

Following the demise of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, the Obama Administration directed a bold, equality-based reading of Windsor to immigration law, treating bi-national same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples. This Essay argues that the President's interpretation is both constitutionally and politically sound: Constitutionally, because it comports with the Executive's power to enforce immigration law and to guarantee equal protection under the law; and politically, because it reflects the current, increasingly tolerant view of marriage equality. Though still in its infancy, President Obama's policy of treating same-sex beneficiary petitions generally the same as opposite-sex ones is a model of presidential leadership on what would otherwise be a controversial issue. While some might be concerned that the executive branch is overstepping its bounds by creating a de facto national immigration policy in the absence of specific congressional fiat and in the midst of a robust national debate over marriage equality, President Obama's directive embraces the promise of integrative egalitarianism, the hallmark of our post-Brown equality jurisprudence, by setting forth an inclusive, uniform federal policy that enhances, rather than diminishes, equality for all.

Comments

This article was originally published at 23 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 1.

Share

COinS