Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge rules same-sex marriage ban in Pennsylvania unconstitutional
CNN ^ | 05/20/2014 | Michael Pearson

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; pennsylvania; poofterism; search
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Another one bites the dust.

Courts have ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage in Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan and just yesterday, Oregon are unconstitutional.

1 posted on 05/20/2014 12:30:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So, like - why are we bothering to have elections?

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...

2 posted on 05/20/2014 12:33:26 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ugh. That makes me ill......


3 posted on 05/20/2014 12:36:47 PM PDT by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

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

SEE HERE:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/judge_rules_oklahoma_cant_ban_sharia_law/

Judge rules Oklahoma can’t ban Sharia law


4 posted on 05/20/2014 12:38:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sharia law vs. gay marriage.

Grab the popcorn!


5 posted on 05/20/2014 12:39:16 PM PDT by lightman (O Lord, save Thy people and bless Thine inheritance, giving to Thy Church vict'ry o'er Her enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Funny these “Federal” judges haven’t ruled Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

F U B O!


6 posted on 05/20/2014 12:42:15 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


7 posted on 05/20/2014 12:42:50 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
John Edward Jones III (born June 13, 1955) is an American lawyer and jurist from the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. A Republican, Jones was appointed by President George W. Bush as federal judge on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in February 2002 and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30, 2002. He is best known for his presiding role in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, in which the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes was ruled to be unconstitutional.

another moderate/lib judge appointed by our side.

8 posted on 05/20/2014 12:43:55 PM PDT by ealgeone (obama, borderof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.


9 posted on 05/20/2014 12:45:15 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


10 posted on 05/20/2014 12:46:17 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


11 posted on 05/20/2014 12:47:42 PM PDT by fabian (" And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, and the forests will echo in laughter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Another Bush appointee. Its starting to be a really close race between him and Obama as to who’s helped liberalism more.


12 posted on 05/20/2014 12:49:18 PM PDT by jarwulf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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!


13 posted on 05/20/2014 12:49:31 PM PDT by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - a classical Christian approach to homeschool])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

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.


14 posted on 05/20/2014 12:51:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The creep who did this has history.

John E. Jones III.

15 posted on 05/20/2014 1:01:42 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And as we all know...no one denied the homos the right to marry....the person of the opposite sex of their choosing.


16 posted on 05/20/2014 1:02:40 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

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?


17 posted on 05/20/2014 1:05:53 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne ("How long, O Lord, holy and true?" - Rev. 6:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It's funny that the essence of the Windsor ruling is now being completely ignored for a political agenda - the right for states to define marriage.
18 posted on 05/20/2014 1:06:28 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Ugh, a Bush appointee.


19 posted on 05/20/2014 1:07:04 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lightman

When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.


20 posted on 05/20/2014 1:12:36 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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?


21 posted on 05/20/2014 1:16:54 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Time to revoke his ruling and BAN U.S. District Judge John E. Jones .... PERMANENTLY !


22 posted on 05/20/2014 1:18:49 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


23 posted on 05/20/2014 1:27:53 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


24 posted on 05/20/2014 1:28:33 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


25 posted on 05/20/2014 1:29:22 PM PDT by rcofdayton (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
"So, if heterosexuals can marry, denying homosexuals the right to marry violates Equal Protection."

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.

26 posted on 05/20/2014 1:33:28 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

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.


27 posted on 05/20/2014 1:35:00 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

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.


28 posted on 05/20/2014 1:37:51 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

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.


29 posted on 05/20/2014 1:46:01 PM PDT by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


30 posted on 05/20/2014 1:46:39 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


31 posted on 05/20/2014 1:53:50 PM PDT by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

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.


32 posted on 05/20/2014 1:55:45 PM PDT by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

It would seem then that the issue of the intent behind the 14th Amendment has not been addressed by the judges involved.


33 posted on 05/20/2014 1:56:00 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo; All
"... the Courts have made it clear that it’s meaning is no longer relevant or followed."

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.

34 posted on 05/20/2014 1:58:51 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

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.


35 posted on 05/20/2014 1:59:07 PM PDT by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
They are first letting the District and Cir courts pick it off one at a time.

Yup. That way, when the SCOTUS inevitably expands it nationwide, they can point to the "emerging consensus among lower courts" or somesuch.

36 posted on 05/20/2014 2:00:33 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: unixfox; All
Allow me to "rule" Obamacare Democratcare unconstitutional with a single Supreme Court case opinion statement.
”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.

37 posted on 05/20/2014 2:03:18 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
"Courts have ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage in Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan and just yesterday, Oregon are unconstitutional."

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."

38 posted on 05/20/2014 2:07:08 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jarwulf
Another Bush appointee. Its starting to be a really close race between him and Obama as to who’s helped liberalism more.

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.

39 posted on 05/20/2014 2:24:47 PM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
"The political system never achieved that despite all the promises of Republican politicians over a 30 plus year period."

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.

40 posted on 05/20/2014 2:26:30 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.

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.

41 posted on 05/20/2014 2:26:56 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Ugh, a Bush appointee

Yeah. Thanks George...again.

Another country club liberal.

42 posted on 05/20/2014 2:40:34 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
'the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children' are not ' “important” state interests'

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

Silly Me

43 posted on 05/20/2014 2:42:45 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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!


44 posted on 05/20/2014 3:07:19 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

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.


45 posted on 05/20/2014 3:23:14 PM PDT by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
So, like - why are we bothering to have elections?

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.

46 posted on 05/20/2014 3:51:48 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jarwulf

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.


47 posted on 05/20/2014 4:09:47 PM PDT by conservaKate ( I grow weary of the goobers in the Republican party. (thanks Chris))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Gross”


48 posted on 05/20/2014 4:42:32 PM PDT by jacob allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sad and predictable, the nation needs repentance.


49 posted on 05/20/2014 5:02:34 PM PDT by BurningOak (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lightman

“Sharia law vs. gay marriage.”

Neither will win. Praise be to GOD.


50 posted on 05/20/2014 5:15:25 PM PDT by ourworldawry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson