Momentum continues to grow across the country as another federal judge, this time in Pennsylvania, struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage. The decision of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III brings the number to 19 states where such marriages are now legal. Such court-ordered changes do not necessarily reflect as significant change in public opinion though a recent polls shows a record 55 percent in support of this basic right. Twelve district courts have now struck down such laws. The case is Whitewood v. Wolf, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68937 (May 20, 2014) (M.D. Penn.).
The Pennsylvania Marriage Laws define “marriage” as “[a] civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife.” 23 Pa. C.S. 1102. “Marriage between persons of the same sex” is addressed as follows:
It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage [*3] shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth.
The attorneys did an excellent job in picking a group of diverse plaintiffs, as noted by the Court:
As a group, they represent the great diversity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They hail from across the state, making their homes in Allegheny, Dauphin, Centre, Northampton, Delaware, Chester, and Philadelphia Counties. They come from all walks of life; they include a nurse, state employees, lawyers, doctors, an artist, a newspaper delivery person, a corporate executive, a dog trainer, university professors, and a stay-at-home parent. They have served our country in the Army and Navy. Plaintiffs’ personal backgrounds reflect a richness and diversity: they are African-American, Caucasian, Latino, and Asian; they are Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Jewish, Quaker, Buddhist, and secular. In terms of age, they range from a couple in their 30s with young children, to retirees in their 60s. Many of the couples have been together for decades.
The court uses the marriage oath as headings like “For Better Or Worse,” “For Richer for Poorer,” “In Sickness And In Health,” and “Until Death Do Us Part.”
23 Pa. C.S. 1704.
The problem with such polls of course is that they do not reflect strong support and opposition in geographical areas of the country. Opponents of same-sex marriage are not going to react well to the language of the opinion. Jones wrote “[w]e are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” It was a resounding victory for equal rights, but as a judicial change as opposed to a political change it will likely infuriate opponents further. Nevertheless, federal judges appear to be coalescing around a view that these laws are facially unconstitutional.
Jones followed the growing trend of courts to adopt a broad interpretation of United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), even though it did not recognize an equal protection right to marriage:
As Justice Scalia cogently remarked in his dissent, “if [Windsor] is meant to be an equal-protection opinion, it is a confusing one.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2706 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Although Windsor did not identify the appropriate level of scrutiny, its discussion is manifestly not representative of deferential review. See id. (Scalia, J., dissenting) (observing that “the Court certainly does not apply anything that resembles [the rational-basis] framework” (emphasis omitted)). The Court did not evaluate hypothetical justifications for the law but rather focused on the harm resulting from DOMA, which is inharmonious with deferential review. See, e.g., McGowan v. State of Md., 366 U.S. 420, 425-26 (1961) (explaining that, under rational-basis scrutiny, legislatures are presumed to have acted constitutionally “despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality,” and “[a] statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it”). Indeed, far from affording the statute the presumption of validity, Windsor found DOMA unconstitutional because “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2696 (emphasis added); see SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbot Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 480, 483 (9th Cir. 2014) (examining “what the Court actually did” in Windsor and concluding that the decision requires heightened scrutiny) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Notably on Monday, an Oregon federal court struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban.
The bios and decision can be reviewed here.
John Edward Jones III happens to be a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush. He previously attracted national attention for his ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, where he ruled that a state law requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools was unconstitutional.
Ihave no idea of what you say is correct about Judaism, for instance. But since we are not Iran, Iraq, etc and do not live in a theocracy we are not requireds to follow the Bible, Qua’ran or other religious texts and teachings. (And we have come a long way since Ben’s time too)
And David as much as I know you would like us to go back to those days thank G-d we have centuries of progress since then,.
leejcaroll wrote: “And David as much as I know you would like us to go back to those days thank G-d we have centuries of progress since then”
My comments are not about going back to those days, but it is helpful to understand the legal basis for the development of laws about marriage. The modern fad about gay marriage is actually moving us backwards to before even the Code of Hammurabi. It is barbaric and destructive to the reasons that the laws about marriage were developed in the first place. It has more in common with the libertarian principles of anarchy than civilized society.
Paul if you read my comment you saw it had to do with David’s assertion that G-d makes no mistakes. If homosexuality is wrong and not of G-d then it would not be found at all, even in the animal kingdom
leejcaroll wrote: “If homosexuality is wrong and not of G-d then it would not be found at all, even in the animal kingdom.”
What in the world? Is this paradigm what has been guiding your thoughts? It is absurd. I guess you don’t read much theology. Most scholars of theology see the entire world as being under judgment and a curse. The sinful nature is said to reside in the flesh, meaning, that animals most of all cannot rise above their carnal nature. There are all kinds of mistakes in the animal kingdom that are easily documented.
Your assertion is like the guy who says there can’t be a God because look at all the evil in the world. Basic theology has already answered this question many times over. I guess this is the result when we ban these subjects from public education and only self-taught people become knowledgeable about these things. Just understand that Christian theology has a focus about man rising above the animal kingdom and that lowering oneself to the animals amounts to self abasement. It is a big reason why they object to the teaching of evolution because it turns their entire paradigm upside down.
I try to stay away from religious discussions here because it is a law blog, so I’m sorry to those who object to discussing theology.
No Child of Americas Plural Families shall suffer to be as second class as to the child of the same-sex couple
I don’t like what Mateusz said (but support his right to say it) but I think his errors may be a result of possibly English not being his language.
David, so all of us who are not married/have never married are “incomplete” humans. Talk about Judging (You know, Judge not lest ye be judged.) There is homosexuality in the animal kingdom so G-d did make a mistake I guess because even those who wrongly claim homosexuality is a choice can’t say that animals make a considered decision when they engage in homosexual activity.
(and always your argument about creating children. If that is the basis then that should be in the legal marriage contract I promise we will have children and if one of us can’t or doesn’t want to then the marriage becomes immediately void.)
leejcaroll – there are females with penises in the animal or insect kingdom, but none of that has anything to do with humans.
leejcaroll wrote: “If that is the basis then that should be in the legal marriage contract I promise we will have children and if one of us can’t or doesn’t want to then the marriage becomes immediately void.)”
Actually, that has been the law in some cultures. For example, look at the Code of Hammurabi and what it has to say about barren wives. The responsibility of the wife in marriage was to bear children.
leejcaroll wrote: “David, so all of us who are not married/have never married are “incomplete” humans.”
This has been the traditional Jewish understanding. Historically, the lack of marriage was a major criticism about Jesus Christ as well as the apostle Paul. To the Jewish mindset, marriage was one of the greatest obligations of a holy man.
This understanding also was the perspective of one of our founding fathers for this nation, Benjamin Franklin.
=====
“It is the man and woman united that make the complete human being. Separate, she wants his force of body and strength of reason; he, her fitness, sensibility, and acute discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the world. A single man has not nearly the Value he would have in the state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors. If you get a prudent healthy wife, your industry in your profession, with her good economy, will be a fortune sufficient.”
Advice on the Choice of a Mistress, by Benjamin Franklin
http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/franklinmis.htm
A lot of americans are the most liar and hypocrical nation of the world. You scream about freedom, human rights but you often don’t support same sex marriage. You are such intolerant like Judaism and Islam. Judaism invent homophobia and islam follow of them to prejudice of homosexuals.. But these are semitic societes. I’m not semitic person and I’m christian conservative which isn’t prejudice like deserts people.
Mateusz wrote: “I’m not semitic person and I’m christian conservative which isn’t prejudice like deserts people.”
Hmmm. It kind of sounds like you are prejudice against “desert people.”
Mateusz wrote: “You scream about freedom, human rights but you often don’t support same sex marriage.”
Yes, I support human rights, but I do not support same sex marriage. I do support same sex unions. People are free to associate with whomever they want, but marriage is an institution for the man and woman to come together in unity and create children. Same sex unions do not have the biological basis to make that meaningful, so what happens when you broaden the definition of marriage is that you destroy its purpose and you destroy it as an institution of civilized society.
One day there will be no marriage at all, but that day should happen when there is no more male and female gender. You say you are a Christian but you don’t seem to recognize that to support gay marriage is to say that God made a mistake when he created humans as male and female, both of which are basically incomplete humans without the union of marriage.
Same-sex couples may be financially dependent upon each other. But so may a pair of elderly sisters, or lifelong nonsexual friends, or a widowed parent and unmarried child. Imposing an estate tax, for example, upon the surviving sister of a pair who lived in a shared home is no less burdensome and unfair in this sense [as it was in the Windsor case]. The sisters cannot legally marry either.
Presented with that, rather than address the issue of close blood homosexuality incest Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted to vacate the Prop 8 which also failed to address that issue – Incest has been carved into its components – one that causes harm -procreation close blood opposites that shall be defended – close blood same genders -no procreation and will not be defended – – forcing the courts to answer . . . Only the various state bans upon same gender marriage prohibit – Brother-Brother, Sister-Sister, Uncle-Nephew, Aunt-Niece type marriages . . . What are the Courts to do ? Send the issue of marriage back to the states or allow Brother-Brother, Sister-Sister, Uncle-Nephew, Aunt-Niece type marriages
RTC,
If David like beastiality, let him, I don’t think he’s going to change the world by his dogma.
Mr. Keebler wrote: “If David like beastiality, let him…”
What a slippery slope indeed. First, fornication is fine, then adultery is not so bad, next homosexuality is a very good thing indeed, then polygamy, after that, beastiality and pedophilia. Where exactly does your version of liberty stop? People can invent rationality to justify just about any kind of licentious behavior. In the end, nobody really understands sex. They understand nothing about the purpose of sex or about its effects upon human psychology and biology. They just want to be free to do it. Such is not a very wise mindset from where I sit. It is driven by emotional feelings and the desire to justify pleasure rather than from rational analysis.
David: You seem awfully worked up on this topic and in matters of sex generally. I’m no psychoanalyst,but then again, I don’t need to be a plumber to see that the pipes are leaking either.
Why does it matter so much to you what people do in their own lives? Isn’t that what freedom is about?
RTC wrote: “Why does it matter so much to you what people do in their own lives? Isn’t that what freedom is about?”
The civil law is meant to secure individuals from harm. I’m just pointing out exactly how homosexuality causes harm, but you choose to believe that the emperor has clothes on. C’est la vie.
“Dictionaries are changing their definitions in order to accommodate the homosexual agenda.”
No David, dictionaries are adjusting their definitions to reflect the on-going generational changes in the English language. The word gay is only one among a number of other, non-sex related words to evolve new meanings. So far, marriage remains unchanged. I will agree that the new meaning given to the word gay has sort of ruined many old-time songs and poems.
Paul, David was not referencing legal he was referencing the definition. I copied and pasted, with link, dictionary definitions of coitus in response to his posting,
Actually we do have adultery laws: http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20140417/FEATURES01/140417009/Graphic-States-anti-adultery-laws-include-Michigan
It is not the past this was just posted in April 2014.
Ah yes David, because the dictionary, actually dictionaries don’t use your personal definition, they must be wrong or have perverted the meaning, Okay then there is no point in trying to have a meaningful conversation with you since it is only your selected definitions and meanings that are legitimate.
Saying I advocate for homosexuality is akin to those who are anti-choice calling those who are pro choice pro abortion. I do not advocate for homo or heterosexuality. I advocate for people who are discriminated against. And I have responded many times to your relationship of biological function to the reason for marriage, which many here have proven to be a falsehood equivalence.
leejcarrol – actually david is correct. For a time, marriage did legalize sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. We no longer have fornication laws or adultery laws, so that is no longer a problem. However, that has only been in the recent past of legal history.
David yes they can achieve coitus:
“coitus
co·i·tus [koh-i-tuhs] Show IPA
noun
sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman.
——————————————————————————–
Origin:
1705–15; < Latin: a coming together, uniting, sexual intercourse, equivalent to coi- (see coition) + -tus suffix of v. action
Related forms
co·i·tal, adjective
co·i·tal·ly, adverb
post·co·i·tal, adjective
post·co·i·tal·ly, adverb
pre·co·i·tal, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.
Cite This Source | Link To coitus
Collins
World English Dictionary
coitus or coition (ˈkəʊɪtəs, kəʊˈɪʃən)
— n
technical terms for sexual intercourse
[C18 coitus: from Latin: a uniting, from coīre to meet, from īre to go]
___________
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coitus
you refer to same sex relations as 'sexual deviancy' boy are you out of the mainstream. And I guess in the animal kingdom those animals that also engage in homosexualy activity are deviants? Better not tell G-d, cause he must have made a mistake there.
And your racism as well is showing. show proof, any legitimate proof of your old wife's tale of stereotyping and raism that "The NFL teams tend to hire more blacks than whites, because biologically, blacks are better athletes."
You can prove they hire the former, they hire more but not the latter. Shame on you David.
leejcaroll, the homosexual advocates have been hijacking the English language for awhile now. Gay no long means gay, and soon marriage no longer means marriage. These perversions make it difficult to communicate. Dictionaries are changing their definitions in order to accommodate the homosexual agenda.
Coitus traditionally refers to a man’s penis being inserted into the vagina during sexual intercourse, usually to climax. There are a variety of spiritual and psychological effects associated with that act. Coitus is the act which traditionally has consummated marriage, but the new definition being created by the gay activists for marriage are getting rid of this because their method of sexual relations does not include coitus.
What is sad is that in your advocacy for homosexuality and the elimination of gender diversity in marriage, you do not recognize a natural biological function of sex. Like Mike Appleton, you want to pretend that only religious considerations would object.
Dredd – you self-identified as having PHD.
And PHD, as Annie described it.
You have the B E N G H A Z I virus.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/benghazi-democrats-hillary-clinton-106978.html
Most of your attempts to be funny or scientific are feeble at best.
Perhaps all, I don’t commit them to lasting memory.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – so you claimed a degree that you do not have. Given the number of misspelling, grammar mistakes, etc. that are on here, I just let that go as your brain working faster than you fingers. However, when I referred to it again, you did not deny it.
I shall remember to call you out on all your little mistakes now, because I know they are not mistakes, but are there on purpose.
===================
The Paulpul bull.
Geez, you find one phrase you think, and think is using the word generously, is funny and you bang it on into three threads. Again, you do not deny what I said, just try to denigrate it by an attempt, feeble at best, to be funny.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – your example is too long. I have ADD. If you have a point to make, make is short and sweet. Or at least short.
======================
Now you tell me.
Noted.
———————————————
Paul Schulte
Dredd – and what does that have to do with anything. I spent my entire life with educated people. One of the things I learned about Ph.D.s is that they actually know a lot about a little. And a little about some things.
==============
And I am sure that the scientist (you don’t trust scientists) who told you that you have a genetic defect / ADD also mentioned that such defects make you a little smarter than scientists, Phd folk, and everyone else.
———————————————
Paul Schulte
Dredd – it is pretty much none of your business.
———————
Aha.
on 1, May 22, 2014 at 2:25 pm Dredd
I have PHD.
=====================================
There are those who skim comments and misrepresent them.
The context of words, sentences, and paragraphs … especially in American English, is quite important to take note of.
Otherwise, the B E N G H A Z I virus will get you.
Dredd – so you claimed a degree that you do not have. Given the number of misspelling, grammar mistakes, etc. that are on here, I just let that go as your brain working faster than you fingers. However, when I referred to it again, you did not deny it.
I shall remember to call you out on all your little mistakes now, because I know they are not mistakes, but are there on purpose.
Boy. My money is ALWAYS on Mike Appleton. Even when he tells me I’m wrong!