• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage
A federal judge declared Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday.The ruling by Judge John E. Jones III ruling would make Pennsylvania the last Northeast state to allow same-sex marriages, although the state could challenge the decision before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Several couples sued the state in July for the right to marry in Pennsylvania or to have their out-of-state same-sex marriages recognized. A 1996 state law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.The state's Democratic attorney general, Kathleen Kane, had declined to defend the law in court. GOP Gov. Tom Corbett took up the case, however, with lawyers for his administration arguing that states have the right to determine the definition of marriage.

Judges have tossed out similar bans in a half dozen states since the Supreme Court decision.The Pennsylvania lawsuit, filed by the state American Civil Liberties Union, claimed the state's own Defense of Marriage Act and its refusal to marry lesbian and gay couples or recognize their out-of-state marriages violates the fundamental right to marry -- and, by discriminating based on sexual orientation, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Back-up links:
Judge Strikes Down Pennsylvania Same-Sex Marriage Ban - NBC News
Judge strikes down Pennsylvania gay marriage ban | MSNBC
Federal judge strikes down Pennsylvania law barring gay marriage | Reuters
Pennsylvania gay marriage ban overturned by judge
Pennsylvania same-sex marriage ban struck down

"and the walls, come tumbling down"
WOOOOWHOOOOOOO! MY HOME STATE!!!!!

good for you PA! Now in the near future many PA residents will share in equal rights like I already do. This will probably get appealed to the 3rd but no worries at all. The other two states in the third already have equality. Another great day for equal rights.

Changes/Updates in RED
5/20/14 Version 12.0

27 States with Equal Rights ( 8 pending/stay)

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 ( Stayed and will be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - ( Stayed and will be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - February 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virginia - February 14/14 (Stayed)
Texas - February 26/2014 (Stayed, pending 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed)
Arkansas - May 5, 2014 (Stayed)
Idaho May 13, 2014 (Stayed)
Oregon 5/20/2014
Pennsylvania May 20, 2014


22 States Working Towards Equal Rights

13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights[/B]
Alabama
Indiana (ruling for ONE marriage but other law suits following)
Kansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


5 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Florida
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

2 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Colorado

thats 47 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - april/may court case
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- two cases that the plaintiffs PLAN to take all the way up if needed but nothing pending
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")

Also 3 State Attorney Generals no longer defending the constitutionality of bans, joining the case against them or reviewing their constitutionality
California (Has equal rights now)
Illinois (Has Equal rights now)
Organ(has equal rights now)
Pennsylvania(has equal rights now)
Kentucky
Nevada
Virginia(stayed)

3 States that still have unequal rights and nothing pending to change it yet, that’s it 3
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!



also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks



 
Last edited:
some quotes from the judge and his rulling

"We now join the 12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage,"

"The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of "separate but equal..." In the sixty years since Brown was decided, "separate has thankfully faded into history, and only "equal" remains. Similarly, in future generations, the label "same sex marriage" will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by "marriage."
We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history."

"Plaintiffs suffer a multitude of daily harms, for instance in the area of child-rearing, healthcare, taxation and end-of--life planning,"
 
Last edited:
Are these the facts?
 
Why vote? We can just do away with it altogether and have the Judiciary decide everything.
 
Last edited:
Why vote? We can just do away with it altogether and have the Judiciary decide everything.

Peoples votes dont mean squat when they are unconstitutional lol
 
1.)An openly Gay judge ruled on the Oregon law yesterday. (should have recused himself)
2.)This will continue until the states say NO MORE!

1.) why? theres no logic for this at all lol
2.) states dont get to make that decision. This is why the states are losing. They have no rights to violate the constitution/individual rights so the FED is fixing it.
 
Why vote? We can just do away with it altogether and have the Judiciary decide everything.

We can't do away with it completely, but it's also important to understand that we are not a strict democracy. Never were.
 
Should have just stopped with the bolded part.

Not really, the second part is the important modifier. Again, not a pure democracy.
 
Should have just stopped with the bolded part.

no thanks i prefer facts and accuracy on this issue instead of made up, dishonest, hyperbole that nobody educated and honestly takes seriously.
 
We can't do away with it completely, but it's also important to understand that we are not a strict democracy. Never were.

We're no longer a republic either. And we have effectively done away with any need for the vote. The robed Ayatollahs rule now.
 
no thanks i prefer facts and accuracy on this issue instead of made up, dishonest, hyperbole that nobody educated and honestly takes seriously.

No you don't. You want to "win" on the gay rights issue and couldn't care less what gets you there. That much has been made obvious.
 
Why vote? We can just do away with it altogether and have the Judiciary decide everything.

Why vote against someone else's choice when that choice doesn't affect you? That is indeed an excellent question.
 
We're no longer a republic either. And we have effectively done away with any need for the vote. The robed Ayatollahs rule now.

The Republic has been on decline for some time. This issue didn't cause it, nor has it exacerbated it.
 
We're no longer a republic either. And we have effectively done away with any need for the vote. The robed Ayatollahs rule now.

Constitutions exist in large measure to protect people from the vicissitudes and opinions of the majority. By establishing universal rights you are shielding people from the... people. You could get 90% of a state to vote for an infringement on speech but it would be void because of my constitutional rights. The voters perspectives are irrelevant in the face of that.
 
We're no longer a republic either. And we have effectively done away with any need for the vote. The robed Ayatollahs rule now.

Those terrible robed ayatollahs, not allowing you to vote against someone else's freedom based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like their freedom. We're basically Iran!
 
Not really, the second part is the important modifier. Again, not a pure democracy.

No it's not an important modifier. We've come to a place where the constitution means whatever the judiciary decides it means and that meaning changes.
 
The Republic has been on decline for some time. This issue didn't cause it, nor has it exacerbated it.

The issue itself, no. The decisions, yes.
 
1.) why? theres no logic for this at all lol
2.) states dont get to make that decision. This is why the states are losing. They have no rights to violate the constitution/individual rights so the FED is fixing it.

When a judge can legislate from the bench against the will of the people, the Constitution has been trashed regardless.
 
Those terrible robed ayatollahs, not allowing you to vote against someone else's freedom based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like their freedom. We're basically Iran!

You said it. But that's the way our republic has gone. The difference is that our ayatollahs aren't necessarily religious.
 
Back
Top Bottom