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.
I’m changing my tag name to Jim22 since there is apparently already a Jim. I didn’t post the Savage video.
This kind of cracked me up..
iconoclast – “I would feel more comfortable with your sourcing re: plural marriage in the UK if you cited a more credible source than a blog with a particular point of view. I don’t like blogs to the left or to the right. They take a shred of a fact and extrapolate in order to reach their own tight conclusions.”
A blog with a particular point of view? Am I the only one who see the irony in this posted on this site?
Max-1 – The women and Jim Crow laws are just straw men arguments. Those were based on race. This is not a race issue.
I do concede though that my side is losing in every aspect of society. The progressives are winning and will keep on winning since time is on their side and they chip away at the stone that can’t be put back together (ie Govt. Health care. It doesn’t matter if it is a failure or not, all that matters is that it got pushed on us and it can never be removed). We are already starting to see some of the results of the progressive movement as we see record numbers of boys refuse to grow up. Everyone’s a victim and the nanny state loves it and will do it’s best to keep you there. The message of self reliance and personal responsibility is just to hard of a sell.
I still say the marriage debate is all about money. Otherwise why would you care if I recognized your marriage or not?
Anyway, does anyone on this site really think they are going to change anyone’s mind either way on these subjects?
Jim22 – oddly enough, on occasion I have changed my mind on something because of what was posted. I think most of the comments are for the people who read but do not comment. For the most part, minds are made up on some subjects. Then again we have the naked guy diving into the moon roof of the car. Hard to have a preconceived mindset on that. 😉
Thank you for finally admitting that you see gay Americans as something less than you and are therefore required to accept a secondary legal status and less access to their rights as American citizens than you. At least you’re willing to expose yourself for the kind of person you are.
Rcampbell – you do not understand “just for the sake of argument” do you. I am very egalitarian. No one is better or worse than me, that includes you.
Help Help Help I have several similar comments eaten by the Spam Monster. I only need one of them released from the Vortex of Doom.
“….watered down by a same sex union pretending to be a marriage.”
I got a good chuckle out of that one. That WAS a nonsense joke, right? Had to be. Otherwise it makes no sense at all. A same sex marriage waters down an opposite sex union? I don’t get it. Does someone being left-handed somehow devalue someone else’s right-handedness? Were my wife and I given something when we got married 43 years ago that we didn’t know about which is suddenly of less value because our friends, Paul and John, got married? Should we have deducted that from our wedding gift to them? Will it affect my credit rating? Will I have to pay more for coffee at Starbucks? It simply makes no sense.
Rcampbell – just for the sake of argument, let us take the following example. You go to college and after passing the required courses with the requisite grade point average are given your well earned degree. Then, a year later, your college decides that people in your field only need half the classes to graduate. They are giving diplomas after two years instead of four. Is your degree now devalued?
When you and your wife married some 43 years ago your choice was between marrying different women, not different men and women.
Give it another name. Next we’ll have male and female gays wanting to have their sex changed on their birth certificate without the equipment to prove it. Equality is misdefined even by the founding fathers. We should have equal but appropriate rights. We are not all ‘equal’. A guy does not have an equal right to give birth; that would be as ridiculous as the arguments are getting these days. I’m opting out of marriage as I have three girlfriends and don’t live in Kenya, but if I were to get married I would not want it watered down by a same sex union pretending to be a marriage.
“… I guess that depends on which agenda you go by; Inclusion or exclusion.”
p.s. Jim and David, what was Jesus preaching? Inclusion or exclusion?
Remember how “oppressed” the white parents felt knowing that a black child was going to the same school as sweet little Suzie? No cares about the centuries of oppression the white community showed fellow black Americans.
Who was preaching their ‘tolerance’ back then? The KK or MLKJr. ?
… I guess that depends on which agenda you go by; Inclusion or exclusion.
Jim,
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863… AGAINST popular sentiment.
Was that right or wrong?
Women voted for the first time in 1920. Their struggle was won by fighting popular sentiment.
Was that right or wrong?
I could keep going on…
FACT: Some people will ‘tolerate’ gays on their bus, just as they do blacks…
… Just not up front OR in their face.
Jim,
Yes, Mr. Savage does know the Bible.
However, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus condemn gays.
Jesus’ message of unconditional love and acceptance isn’t supported by Christian fanatics and fundamentalists. Theirs is one OF judging others, condemning others, segregation and persecution of others seen not worthy enough of their Faith. Really Jim, who in the Bible did Jesus condemn, anyway but the people in Faith leaderships that seek to condemn others and ridicule others and claim that those less desirable are barred FROM the Kingdom. Those are the people Jesus condemned to eternal fires. NOT gays…
In essence Jim, as a gay man myself, I’ll reassure you that homophobia speaks louder about the homophobe than it does the people that homophobe hates… PEACE.
FYI, here’s Dan Savage and his husband and child sitting down to dinner with one his biggest H8erz… Brian Brown. Discussing Faith, history, and bigots.
What Chuck and Rcampbell said. You either have full equality or you don’t. Kudos to the judge.
Separate but equal is NOT equal. ONLY being treated equally equals equality.
David sez: “I’m not sure what you mean by lack of empathy. In California, the Domestic Partnership basically has all the benefits that a marriage has. That’s what the the Supreme Court there declared. What benefits are you lacking?”
***********************************
If it’s no big deal, how come you are making such a big deal of limiting marriage rights?
I mean, and these are your words, not mine, “Domestic Partnership basically has all the benefits that a marriage has,” then how come you are fighting to keep people who love each other in committed relationships from getting married? Would you swap being married for a Domestic Partnership with your wife? Since it is basically the same?
Chuck wrote: “I mean, and these are your words, not mine, “Domestic Partnership basically has all the benefits that a marriage has,” then how come you are fighting to keep people who love each other in committed relationships from getting married?”
Because marriage is about much more than stupid government benefits.
Chuck wrote: “Would you swap being married for a Domestic Partnership with your wife? Since it is basically the same?”
Domestic Partnership is not the same as marriage. In California, they simply recognize the same legal benefits. Now if we change marriage to be merely a contract between two people who love each other, then Domestic Partnership and Marriage would become identical. That is the crux of the problem, the destruction of the institution of marriage.
DavidM sed:” Same sex unions and opposite sex unions are different biologically, and it is foolish for any laws to treat them identically.”
Men and women are biologically different and yet the law treats them identically in essence. Ironically, women were denied suffrage on the basis of their biological difference.
———————————————–
David continues: “…the long standing institution of marriage will be destroyed.”
No, it won’t. There will always be an overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans opting to tie the knot in a traditionally religious marriage.
Continuing on: “The building block of a strong society, the family, will be mostly destroyed as people choose more and more to have children out of wedlock.”
You’re horribilizing. Families will be strengthened as gays and lesbians adopt many of the unwanted children in or headed to foster care; and they’ll make great families with loving, committed parents.
Carrying on: “The repercussions of this will lead to a decline in civilized society…. Soon the obituary will be written about the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization.”
This qualifies as eristic. And silly…over the top silliness.
Elsewhere on this thread: “Same sex unions have nothing to do with reproduction.”
Reproduction is only one component of human sexual behavior, and not necessarily the most important one. Evolution liberated the human species from a limited mating season. The evolutionary advantage of this was social bond building, which aided human survival, many species reproduce sexually, few form lasting pair bonds.
Homosexuality, promiscuity, and extra-bond relationships has been observed in lower primates and has been shown to enforce social cohesion and order, and has nothing to do with reproduction. Plants reproduce sexually, so maybe the sexual behavior of the human species is a sign of higher order development.
“…society has become more licentious, and as we do, we become less rational and more emotional about the subject.
Don’t think society’s becoming more licentious. Things were pretty libidinous around the time of the Revolution, they were raunchy during the 1880’s and 90’s, and positively orgiastic during the Roaring Twenties. All those periods make the Sixties look tame by comparison.
As far as becoming emotional goes, you’re projecting your upset feelings on the situation; you seem to be the one becoming highly emotional, and as a result, you;re making irrational comments, as your comment at 11:42 demonstrates.
So that we’re clear the “will of the people” never included a right to deny others of their civil rights. It was “the will of the people” that denied women the vote for 150 years of American history. Southern states held out that bull crap excuse to justify Jim Crow laws. The more America and Americans ignore conservatives the better off America is.
Thanks Darren.
Where in the Quran does it say to stone someone as punishment?
Best AnswerAsker’s Choice
It doesn’t. Humans made up this law to suit their own agenda.
“So the punishment is different for the married and unmarried. There is no reason to get worked up about thi.s. Our creator, the One who knows best for us prescribed this punishment as a justice and not Dhulm (oppression).” — For the person who wrote this, Our Creator prescribed this? I wasn’t aware that Allah ran out of words or forgot. If He prescribed stoning, it would be in the Quran. To create something than attribute it to Allah is blasphemy.
May Allah guide us all to the straigh path, and not the path of the strayers.
EDIT: Majeed…. that is a REALLY great answer, but it was pointless since the Asker specifically asked for Quranic verses. Being Western has nothing to do with how we interpret Quran. Quran is made for EVERYONE regardless of race. It’s funny how Quran mentions adultry over and over again but never ONCE mentions stoning.
Source:
Quran
Link
Paul Schulte
Dredd – thanks. I have no problem with Sharia law within religious disputes but there has been some talk about incorporating into secular law. That is where I get nervous.
====================
Religious law being placed into secular law is a thrust of the right-wing subversive group ALEC, not American Islamic religionists.
—————————-
What the Bible says about stoning (Everybody must get stoned)
For touching Mount Sinai
Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13
For taking “accursed things”
Achan … took of the accursed thing. … And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. … So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26
For cursing or blaspheming
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
For animals (like an ox that gores a human)
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28
For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
For worshipping other gods
If there be found among you … that … hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them … Then shalt thou … tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers … thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10
For disobeying parents
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
For witches and wizards
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
For giving your children to Molech
Whosoever … giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2
For breaking the Sabbath
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56
For cursing the king
Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10
Paul Schulte
Dredd – what is the court case in reference to?
=================
Here is the link to Watson v Jones
Search the page for “the law knows no heresy” and read on to “The right to … create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned.”
Paul Schulte
Dredd – what is the court case in reference to?
=================
That Sharia law has been legit in the U.S. for centuries in the sense that “the law knows no heresy” and that any religious group can have its own legal system to adjudicate religious matters and the secular courts, state and federal, have no jurisdiction in such matters.
Sharia law is one such valid system within American religions practices.
Dredd – thanks. I have no problem with Sharia law within religious disputes but there has been some talk about incorporating into secular law. That is where I get nervous.
Dredd wrote: “Sharia law is one such valid system within American religions practices.”
What are you trying to say here? Do you want Sharia law to have the force of government? Are you okay with criminalizing adultery and homosexuality? Are you okay with criminalizing the conversion of a person from Islam to another religion?
Dredd – seems to think that Sharia laws should be allowed in the USA. And yet, no progressive has jumped on him yet.