Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Continuing a rush of rulings that have struck down marriage limits across the country, a federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. "We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history," wrote Judge John E. Jones III of Federal District Court in a decision posted on Tuesday afternoon. Pennsylvania is the last of the Northeast states with a ban on same-sex marriage, and if Tuesday's ruling is not successfully challenged, it will become the 19th state to permit gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Judge Jones did not issue a stay, writing, "By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth."

Even as Gov. Tom Corbett (R) said he was studying the decision and considering whether to appeal it, state officials began issuing marriage licenses on Tuesday afternoon to overjoyed gay couples.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Congrats!

Judge John E. Jones III said "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."

#1 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-05-20 11:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2014-05-21 06:09 PM | FLAG: FF

#3 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-21 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett announced on Wednesday afternoon that the state would not appeal Judge Jones' ruling.

Judge Jones opinion is here.

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-21 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

My home state Rhode Island legalized same sex marriage with some Republicans in the Senate and House joining Democrats in the vote. Then Governor Lincoln Chafee proudly signed the bill into law.

#5 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-21 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

In my home state Rhode Island, they did not wait for a Federal Judge The people's representatives in the Senate and House including some Republicans and most Democrats voted in favor, and the Governor gladly signed the law.

The greatest little state in the union ..Little Rhody
The Ocean State

#6 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-21 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Don't let the people vote on it!"

The left

#7 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-22 12:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Diablo: After SSM is established in all 50 states, are you going to keep whining about it?

#8 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2014-05-22 06:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

#5 Perpetual victim.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-22 07:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

'"Don't let the people vote on it!"

The left'

What's wrong with that position? Nothing wrong with recognizing basic human rights and not subjecting them to the tyranny of the majority.

If it were subject to a vote, the practice of Catholicism would have easily been banned in this country.

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-22 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

The ruling is nonsense, as is the opinion. You dont even get past the first page and you can clearly see this was an emotional decision, not one based on professionalism and jurisprudence. The judge even admitted in his ruling on page 13 that he doesnt have precedence on his side, but he feels that the decades that have passed make the Supreme Court's ruling on the Equal Protection clause obsolete.

He's a piss poor jurist and needs to go.

#11 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-05-22 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#11 | Posted by americanPLY

IV. Substantive Questions
A. Due Process
1. Fundamental Right to Marry
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that all citizens have certain "fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty [that] are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States." Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992) (quoting Whitney v. California, 247 U.S. 357, 373 (1927)).

There's your problem.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-22 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

You dont even get past the first page and you can clearly see this was an emotional decision, not one based on professionalism and jurisprudence.

If all one reads is the introduction then you could come to that uninformed conclusion. Wrong but nevertheless a conclusion. Skip to page 15 where the court begins addressing the substantive questions.

The judge even admitted in his ruling on page 13 that he doesnt have precedence on his side...

Another problem, lack of reading comprehension. Lack of precedent is discussed at page 24 in terms of the level of scrutiny to be applied. That neither the Third Circuit nor the Supreme Court had ruled definitively left the court to it's own discretion. The court chose "heightened scrutiny" while noting other courts had routinely struck down similar laws with lesser "rational basis" scrutiny.

The discussion continuing at page 13 had to do with the application of Baker v. Carr. The court observed that "[t]he Supreme Court has decided several cases since Baker which demonstrate that it no longer views constitutional challenges based on sex or sexual identity classifications as unsubstantial." Then proceeds to cite a long list of precedent supporting the statement. Thus, Baker is not controlling.

If you want to parse court opinions learn how to read them before jumping to conclusions.

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-22 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort