Skip to comments.Federal judge rules same-sex marriage ban in Pennsylvania unconstitutional
Posted on 05/20/2014 12:30:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A federal judge Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's law prohibiting same-sex marriage, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution.
With the ruling, the Keystone State joins a host of others in which judges have struck down existing laws restricting marriage to between one man and one woman. All such decisions have been stayed, pending appeals.
"Because these laws are unconstitutional, we shall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement," U.S. District Judge John E. Jones wrote of Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage restrictions. "By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Courts have ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage in Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan and just yesterday, Oregon are unconstitutional.
We could just let our 2-3,000 Black-Robed Masters tell us how it's going to be.
Oh, wait - that's how it is, already...
Ugh. That makes me ill......
This is not only going on for the issue of marriage.
Oklahoma’s referendum for a proposed constitutional amendment to block state judges from considering Sharia law when handing down decisions, WHICH WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED by the people, was BLOCKED by a Federal Judge who ruled that
the ban violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. banning Sharia law
Judge rules Oklahoma cant ban Sharia law
Sharia law vs. gay marriage.
Grab the popcorn!
Funny these “Federal” judges haven’t ruled Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
F U B O!
The parasitic financial elite establishment has owned our Judiciary for a long time.
Too bad for us, the Rockys want perversion. So they’re forcing it on all Americans, as well as the rest of the world.
Until these financial elite parasites face prosecution and just punishment for their treason, the governments that are playing host to them will be used against righteousness and promote evil.
another moderate/lib judge appointed by our side.
Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.
They’re wiseasses. It’s blatant.
The sheeple need to stop accepting evil and unrighteousness.
Stop thinking abominations are “ok”.
Start owning their own politicians.
Oh, I see. Now we have rule by judges and not the people? These judges are out of bounds and need to be tarred and feathered and kicked out on their asses.
Another Bush appointee. Its starting to be a really close race between him and Obama as to who’s helped liberalism more.
We really need the states to say NO! Stand up to FedZilla.
The people in the states will support it. C’mon states - do it!
RE: Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.
These judges inevitably cite the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
So, if heterosexuals can marry, denying homosexuals the right to marry violates Equal Protection.
And as we all know...no one denied the homos the right to marry....the person of the opposite sex of their choosing.
One more traitor appointed by the idiot George W. Bush. When will people accept that all the Bushes are globalists and elitists who couldn’t care less about morality?
Ugh, a Bush appointee.
When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
We know what the intent was in passing the 14th Amendment, namely, to eliminate unequal treatment based on race or former status as a slave, or for that matter, against Republicans in the South. What proof is there that any legislator involved in the passage of the 14th Amendment had any “intent” to outlaw discrimination against homosexuals? Has any court addressed this question?
Time to revoke his ruling and BAN U.S. District Judge John E. Jones .... PERMANENTLY !
Just because a “ban” is unconstitutional, it does not make gay “marriage” legal, right?
Judges were given no such power in the constitution, so this ruling is also unconstitutional.
I know. We have indeed lost this one. It’s only a matter of time before SCOTUS expands it nationwide. They are first letting the District and Cir courts pick it off one at a time.
It is the states that have sovereignty over the issue of marriage. This judge has breached the Constitution and is a traitor to the constitution and should be treated as such.
As mentioned in related threads concerning constitutionally unprotected gay marriage and the Equal Protections Clause, please consider the following.
Politically correct, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause by activist judges aside, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So regardless that activist judges are saying that anti-gay marriage state laws are unconstitutonal, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay marriage as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights imo.
A key Supreme Court case which clearly indicates that the states are free to discriminate on the basis of sex regardless of the Equal Protections Clause is Minor v. Happersett. In that case Virginia Minor used the Equal Protections Clause to argue that her citizenship gave her the right to vote regardless that she was a woman.
However, the Court did not buy her argument but clarified that the 14th Amendment did not add new rights to the Constitution, that it only strengthened existing protections.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
And since the states hadn't amended the Constitution to expressly protect woman sufferage before the 14th Amendment was ratifed, women still didn't have the right to vote after 14A was ratified regardless of the Equal Protections Clause.
Note that the states subsequently ratified the 19th Amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote.
But it remains that the states have never amended the Constituiton to expressly protect gay agenda issues, including gay marriage.
What patriots need to do stop activist judges in their tracks with respect to legislating from the bench is the following. Patriots need to work with state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to promptly, clearly and publicly specify any constitutional clauses to substantiate their decisions. And if the Constitution is silent about a particular issue, then judges need to clarify that it is a 10th Amendment-protected issue. And if the states don't like what the Constitution says then they can always exercise their unique, constitutional Article V option to amend it.
Patriots also need to start making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, including the difference between legislative and judicial powers.
I am not supporting the decision at all, just answering your question.
It is Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment upon which the Courts primarily rely. They are ruling that equal protection of the laws is violated if a law is prohibiting them to get married to members of the same sex where it permits heterosexual couples to marry. Even more specifically is the application of laws “differently” to heterosexual couples.
It is the exact same reasoning used by the Courts in ruling that the anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. They are ruling that interracial marriage is no different than same sex marriage.
Again, let me be clear ... I am not at all supporting the decision (I don’t) I’m just, as an attorney who argued many Constitutional issues, answering your question.
The Minor case was actually a bit different as the Court ruled that there is no inherent right to vote and while not specifically overruled (there is no need since the 19th Amendment) the Courts have made it clear that it’s meaning is no longer relevant or followed.
I had this argument with a coworker yesterday. It was disappointing.
She told me that if the authors of the 14th Amendment wanted to limit it to race-based issues, then they - being the intelligent law-writers that they were - would’ve expressly written such limits into the text of the amendment. She then told me that if I wanted to write “except for marriage law” limits into the amendment, I needed to amend it to explicitly say so.
I countered that the amendment’s authors probably could’ve never imagined that the country would delve into such depraved depths.
The whole conversation really pissed me off. She’s plenty conservative on a whole host of issues, so this one took me by surprise.. until she revealed that she has a younger homo brother.
Given the SCOTUS ruling, I doubt any Federal judge is going to rule in favor of laws banning same-sex marriage.
To win this fight, we either need a Federal amendment. Or a change in SCOTUS or both.
Looks like this judge appointed by G. W. Bush and with his most famous ruling an anti-free speech one in my mind (The Dover Case) riddled with bitterness and hostility towards the religious people on a local school board, ruled true to form.
In his dissent last year, Justice Scalia said the court was opening up the box to this with its ruling against the Defense Of Marriage Act.
It would seem then that the issue of the intent behind the 14th Amendment has not been addressed by the judges involved.
With all due respect RightwardHo, the Courts have no constitutional authority to either legislate from the bench, or to amend the Constitution from the bench. That's why I had indicated that patriots need to work with state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws to keep Constitution-ignoring activist judges off of the bench.
The political system never achieved that despite all the promises of Republican politicians over a 30 plus year period.
On this matter the next step is repression of speech opposing gay marriage, in fact we see that is already underway.
The movement behind gay marriage wants to ban any speech in any forum that opposes gay marriage, including churches.
I thought we had a First Amendment, too, but this is a backdoor attack on its provisions for free speech and religion.
Yup. That way, when the SCOTUS inevitably expands it nationwide, they can point to the "emerging consensus among lower courts" or somesuch.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added) Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Please note that the listed handful of states is a far cry from the Constitution's Article V 3/4 supermajority of states required to amend the Constitution to constitutionally protect so-called gay rights."
Really? I think it's Bush by a mile. For starters, take a look at Medicare Part D, George W. Bush's senior prescription drug plan that is, believe it or not, even more expensive than Obamacare. Not to mention No Child Left Behind, huge increases in foreign aid, McCain-Feingold, etc. At least Republicans kind of say no to Obama.
True but we're now aware of just how packed the GOP was with RINO's. And even when they weren't RINO's, many of the GOP still didn't recognize the importance of dealing with this issue at the Federal level. They thought it was a state's right issue (ala Fred Thompson).
There is a third alternative. And that is for Congress to start impeach judges.
The ruling (http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf) says there is a fundamental right to marry from Planned Barrenhood v Casey, and 'the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children' are not 'important state interests'.
And it has some of the most blatant soapboxing I've ever seen in a ruling. The judge must be planning to run for legislative office - or retire to a cushy advisory position with a left-wing 'think' tank.
Yeah. Thanks George...again.
Another country club liberal.
Gee, and here I thought that a Free Society would have the right to make those very things important for the continuity and stability of their society
Where in the Constitution is the guarantee of a marriage between two homosexuals? I’ve read the Constitution in and out and have not found it. I’m being facitious, obviously. Everybody has a right to marriage in the traditional sense, a sense that everyone understands, a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee the right to perverse sexual encounters. These judges are as perverse as the clowns who files suit!
The ruling (http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf) says there is a fundamental right to marry from Planned Barrenhood v Casey, and ‘the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children’ are not ‘important state interests’.
No, what the court said was: “Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are ‘legitimate,’ advancing no argument that the interests are ‘important’ state interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny.”
So, in other words, Pennsylvania screwed up.
I wish we could have an election to opt-out of the country formerly known as America. I'd vote for it in an instant.
In my mind...not even close. George W did more to hurt the Republican party than O has. If anything, O is doing more to move the dial to the right. Folks are flat tired of all this BS.
Tired....and maybe....they will get off their duffs and vote.
Well, one can hope.
Sad and predictable, the nation needs repentance.
“Sharia law vs. gay marriage.”
Neither will win. Praise be to GOD.