Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage



A federal judge declared Pennsylvania’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it’s time to toss such laws “into the ash heap of history.”

The ruling by Judge John E. Jones III makes 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.


It overturns, definitively and with rhetorical flourish, the 18-year-old state Defense of Marriage Act.
"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history,” Judge Jones wrote at the end of his 39-page opinion.
“Based on the foregoing, we hold that Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because these laws are unconstitutional, we shall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement,” the judge wrote.


Completely Vile.


:frowning: That’s a shame.


What can one expect when one lives in a lawless nation, but madness? We live in a Banana “Republic”, Folks. What a dim future awaits our children! The power has been stolen from We the People by tyrants from Obama on down. :frowning:


In the next few years gay marriage is going to be legalized state by state.

The Church in the US and legislators would have been wiser to have advocated for the removal of “marriage” from state control and allowing civil unions to be granted by the government.


:sad_yes:Unfortunately I think you are right. Just 10 years ago this “debate” seemed so absurd. I used to think it would never happen in my lifetime; now it seems inevitable. :frowning:


I might be one of the few but…I’m thrilled by the news, especially since I have some freinds over there. This Judge Jones is wise, America was founded not by Christians, but by Deists as a secular country. And a secular country shouldn’t back up legislation resting solely on what a few religions out of millions deem to be moral or immoral.

I’m happy for them. :slight_smile:


This has nothing to do with Obama. This was decided by a federal judge appointed by GWB. Obama couldn’t prevent or reverse this even if he wanted to.


Congratulations Pennsylvania! :thumbsup:


Statement on Today’s Marriage Ruling

HARRISBURG (May 20, 2014) – Pennsylvania’s longstanding Defense of Marriage Act was passed by democratically-elected officials and recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman. Today’s decision by one federal judge speaks to the confusion and misunderstanding among many today about the fundamental building block of society: the family. Every child has a basic right to a mother and a father united in marriage as a family. Today’s decision does not change that.

Yes, marriage is a personal relationship, but it is not merely a private affair between two people. It is a relationship with great public significance and, since it is the foundation of the family, it affects the wider society. By God’s design, every child has a mother and a father. Circumstances may prevent a child from being raised by his or her own mother and father, so we stand in solidarity with single mothers and fathers who work responsibly each day to raise their children. However, marriage is the way society provides for children’s needs. The redefinition of marriage enshrines in law a denial of the rights of children to a mother and a father united in marriage.

The Catholic Church teaches that all people are made in the image of God and that everyone has inherent dignity. No one should face unjust discrimination. But human experience, considerable social data, as well as our religious convictions, lead us to see clearly that children thrive best in a stable family grounded on the marital union of one man and one woman. Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage is not a statement about the worth of human beings who experience same-sex attraction, but a statement about the nature of marriage itself.

Pope Francis recently said, “The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together. This is the image of God: love, God’s covenant with us is represented in that covenant between man and woman. And this is very beautiful!” Marriage is beautiful indeed, and the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference does not support this judge’s redefinition of this fundamental human institution. The PCC will further study the judge’s decision and is hopeful that an appeal will promptly be made.

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference is the public affairs agency of Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops, representing the ten Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania. There are more than 3 million Catholics in Pennsylvania. More information about the PCC is available at www.pacatholic.org.



One arrogant, loathesome judge abused his power and forced this upon us. To “congratulate” the state is to recognize tyrannical power as legitimate. Rob :cool:


I don’t care who appointed this phony judge. Obama is packing the courts with radical leftists who disdain the US Constitution. Bush had a mixed record on judicial appointments, and IMO, he wasn’t nearly careful enough with his selections. Rob :rolleyes:


Looking at the landscape, it looks like that, but consider the day after Roe v Wade ruling, the front of the New York Times said: ‘Supreme Court Settles Abortion Issue.’ Is the abortion issue settled since Roe v Wade in 1973? State after state is passing abortion regulations. Is the legality of abortion in the future in doubt? Equal Rights Amendment looked to be ‘unstoppable.’


This judge is forcing you to marry a dude?

Here’s the thing – these marriage bans are unconstitutional. It’s tyrannical to try and uphold any law that violates our constitutional rights.


One Nation UNDER GOD.


I’m not sure you understand the role of a judge. They are not there to uphold the political agenda of the person who appointed them, they are there to interpret the constitution.

Rather than complaining about Obama (who once again, has nothing to do with this), why not read the judge’s decision and formulate an argument against it based on the constitution? That would be a much better use of time than throwing out uncharitable accusations and gross mischaracterizations of people you’ve never met.


They disdain the Constitution? Um…

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Fourteenth Amendment

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Article IV, Section 1


Marriage in the Christian sense is different than marriage in the secular sense.

If two people of the same sex want to be married in a secular ceremony, or in a religious tradition than accepts it, that is their choice and their right. Marriage outside of the Christian tradition is about committing to one another and legal rights. It does share SOME of the same ideals as a Christian marriage but it does not equal it (not a sacrament, etc).

So from the secular stand point, it’s moot to argue. Accept it and move on (notice I did not say agree with it or like it).

Now if there were a government mandate that said the Church had to perform same-sex marriages, it would be another issue. That is something you do not have to accept and embrace and can willingly rebel against.


Yeah, that charge is obnoxious. No one goes through an undergraduate degree, law school, the bar, years as a public defender, and then a judge if they hate the constitution. I’m lucky enough to be surrounded by law students, lawyers, judges, and legal scholars every day. No matter what their views or political stripe, the one thing they all have in common is patriotism and a deep love and respect for the constitution.

Scalia and O’Connor are on opposite sides of most cases that make headlines. If you read their opinions, you’ll see that they rip each other’s interpretation of the constitution apart at every turn. But they are good friends and have a very deep respect for the other’s perspective and position. They would never throw out such an accusation against the other. Both love the constitution and this country.


Which one? Dispater, Dagda, Zeus, Kamadeva? Might want to be a bit more specific if you’re going to be imposing your concept on the masses.

Which is apparently what America decided to do with the pledge of allegiance in 1954 when “under god” was added in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance. Please, do check if you don’t belive me.

Like I said, America wasn’t founded by Christians, it was created as a secular country.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.