Holdout Pennsylvania Pelted With Gay ...

Holdout Pennsylvania Pelted With Gay Marriage Lawsuits

There are 9 comments on the National Public Radio story from Oct 6, 2013, titled Holdout Pennsylvania Pelted With Gay Marriage Lawsuits. In it, National Public Radio reports that:

Sasha Ballen and Dee Spagnuolo , the first couple to receive a marriage certificate issued to a same-sex couple in Pa., are now party to two of five lawsuits filed since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a section of DOMA back in June.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Public Radio.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1 Oct 6, 2013
Supreme Court:

"Congress... cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
...the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."
(Windsor)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Oct 6, 2013
I think pursuing marriage equality in all 50 states, is an exercise in the law of diminishing returns.

We have a significant number of states now with marriage equality.

I think a better use of the available resources in achieving marriage equality on a nationwide basis is to pursue it in the federal courts.

Ultimately, its going to be up to SCOTUS anyway, whether marriage equality nationwide is pursued on a state-b-state basis, or solely thru the federal courts.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3 Oct 7, 2013
I think it will be easier to have a federal law pass, if an ever increasing number of states have their marriage bans fail. When it passes the majority, there is no longer the notion that marriage is an experiment, or something debatable.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Oct 7, 2013
Quest wrote:
I think it will be easier to have a federal law pass, if an ever increasing number of states have their marriage bans fail. When it passes the majority, there is no longer the notion that marriage is an experiment, or something debatable.
But SCOTUS ruled long ago that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution, even though it is an enumerated right (as many are). This is why anti-micegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in the famous Loving v. Virginia decision. The supporters of those laws used the same animus and bigotry and arguments of fear, loathing and "crimes against nature" that SCOTUS didn't buy then, and I don;t think SCOTUS will buy those arguments in the future.

There is simply NO "compelling state interest" in denying LGBT Americans Americans a RIGHT that SCOTUS has already ruled is fundamental and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

"But we don't like it" is not a valid constitutional argument.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#5 Oct 7, 2013
Gay marriage is coming if not for any other reason than the agruements against it have been pretty looney.

If you are homophobic and think its disgusting; that is not a valid agruement.

If you think "marriage" is a religious term, then we simply rename all marriage as civil unions like it should have originally been.

If you dont think its natural, then you dont spend much time with animals.

If you dont think its the same types of marriages that are in the bible, you did not read the bible.

I have yet to hear an valid agruement for not passing it. And it also seems that those most against it are currenlty dying off.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Oct 7, 2013
Lamer wrote:
Gay marriage is coming if not for any other reason than the agruements against it have been pretty looney.
If you are homophobic and think its disgusting; that is not a valid agruement.
If you think "marriage" is a religious term, then we simply rename all marriage as civil unions like it should have originally been.
If you dont think its natural, then you dont spend much time with animals.
If you dont think its the same types of marriages that are in the bible, you did not read the bible.
I have yet to hear an valid agruement for not passing it. And it also seems that those most against it are currenlty dying off.
I agree. But your spelling is atrocious.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#7 Oct 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But your spelling is atrocious.
yeah, it always has been. I have no firefox here at work and i miss my spell checker built in.... I apologise for my ignorance as i grew up having spell check...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8 Oct 7, 2013
"The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment"
(Windsor)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#9 Oct 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."
"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment"
(Windsor)
Well, one or more people are going to have to sue The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania to force them to comply. And ultimately, if the federal courts rule that Pennsylvania must comply with the courts' rulings, and the state simply refuses to do so, what are you going to do ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 40 min Righty 468
News Trump donates $100k to anti-LGBT Pastor 40 min The Boss 8
News Women and the LGBT Community Are Natural Allies 56 min Fa-Foxy 2
A question for NE Jade 1 hr Gryph 3
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 15,940
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 1 hr Skippy 14
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Nigel 38,779
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 199
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 hr Mac Donnell 57
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,966
More from around the web