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.