Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

Yes, a factual dispute not a legal one. The supreme court justices and all of us are equal witnesses to our nations marriage laws and their history. They are no more qualified than you or I to make such factual determinations. I claim marriage is limited to men and women in order to include all those relationships where a potential of procreation is possible. They claim it is so limited in order to "disparage and harm" homosexuals. And when I say they, it is always the lowliest court in the system making the factual determinations while appellate and supreme courts merely accept the lower courts findings on the facts and only question their findings of law. I can point to 230 years of history to support my views while they base their views entirely upon a few isolated comments in congressional debates or NOM's referendum campaign material to support theirs.

 

Only if the spouse has adopted the child or was involved in its conception through an invitro fertilization agreement. Most children with gay couples are from a previous heterosexual relationship of one of the couple. Many of them women collecting child support payments from the biological father. The lesbian spouse has no legal relation to the child and if they divorce, no legal obligation to the child. That's still held by the father still paying child support.

 

Seems odd to call government licensing and regulating of personal relationships a freedom. 'Give me licensing and regulation or give me death!' Let freedom ring! Your such a democrat.
When government made sex between a man and a woman who are not married a crime, marriage was about freedom. When the Lovings were arrested, not for going to Washington DC to marry, but for coming back to Virginia and cohabitating with a woman he isn't legally married to, marriage was about freedom. Freedom to create a family required a freedom to marry. Without those laws, marriage is only about licensing and regulating, the antithesis of freedom.

 

But they are more qualified than you to make legal determinations- and that is what matters.

No they don't. You keep saying that but as I have pointed out repeatedly that is not what the courts have said.

Here again is what the court in Penn said

In sum, Defendants have failed to carry their burden, and we conclude thatthe classification imposed by the Marriage Laws based on sexual orientation is notsubstantially related to an important governmental interest. Accordingly, we holdthat the Marriage Laws violate the principles of equal protection and are thereforeunconstitutional.
V.CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we hold that Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution. Because these laws are unconstitutional, weshall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement. By virtue of thisruling, 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.

You can point to all sorts of things, but then again so do the people who argue that the income tax is unconstitutional.

230 years ago slavery was legal, women were chattel and men were the lords of the marriage. Times have changed- attitudes towards race, and religion and sexual orientation have changed.

But the courts have consistently found that marriage is an individual right.

A right you argue should be denied to individuals who want to marry someone of the same gender.

- - - Updated - - -

Incorrect and immaterial.

And that would apply to the children of gay spouses.

Why do you want to deny the benefits of a stable home to the children of gay parents?

- - - Updated - - -

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

To be fair, state supreme courts are the authority on whether a state law, statute, regulation, or even an ammendment to the state constitution, is constitutional according to that state's constitution. In the case of Prop 8, the CA state Supreme Court did hold that Prop 8 was correctly enacted and added to the CA constitution and therefore was constitutional.

However, Prop 8 was subsequently challenged on federal grounds that it violated the US Constitution. And guess what, a federal judge, plus an appellate court, found that it did violate the US constitution and was struck down as a result. This was not the first time that an ammendment to a state constitution was struck down by a federal court. See Reitman v. Mulkey (California Proposition 14) for an example of how the SCOTUS could strike down an ammendment to state constitution, overturning the will of the voters, because it violated the US Constitution.

 

Except these cases turn on a factual determination, not a legal one.

Silly little man, I was quoting different words from the court. And nothing in your selected quote contradicts a thing I said

- - - Updated - - -

AND they are the ULTIMATE authority on what state law is.

 

Lol........

- - - Updated - - -

Dixon, this has been repeatedly refuted beyond any argument.

 

You people have refuted nothing. ALL your examples of the lesbian spouse with a legal parental relationship with the child have been through adoption or invitro fertilization agreements, which doesnt refute ANYTHING Ive said. Like I said, the birth of a child ONLY obligates the mother who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. Presumed to be the husband when she is married. That doesnt preclude a sperm donor surrendering his parental rights, the couple entering a valid artificial insemination agreement and aknowledging parentage upon the birth of a child, ALSO create such an obligation.

 

Refuted

 

LOL- obviously my stating the facts is starting to irritate you!

Once again- the conclusion of the court in Penn

Here again is what the court in Penn said

In sum, Defendants have failed to carry their burden, and we conclude that the classification imposed by the Marriage Laws based on sexual orientation is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. Accordingly, we hold that the Marriage Laws violate the principles of equal protection and are therefore unconstitutional.

And of course the court is correct- neither you or the state of Penn has shown any important governmental interest in refusing to allow same gender couples to marry.

And that is why you keep losing.

The right to marry is considered a fundamental individual right. And the state can only deny that right with a compelling state interest.

 

??? I pointed out nothing of what you quoted contradicts a thing Ive said

Look at that, DIRECTLY contradicting your claims in the other thread that the courts demanded justification for excluding couples of the "same-sex" when in fact the demanded justification for excluding homosexuals.

 

Same-sex marriage and "gay marriage" are synonymous, because the two in practice have a 100% congruency. Excluding homosexuals from marriage means no same-sex marriage. Excluding same-sex marriage means no homosexuals can marry those they love.

So the courts are correct, bans on same-sex marriage are bans based on sexual orientation. Bans based on sexual orientation are bans on same-sex marriage. The two cannot be HONESTLY separated. Which is something that of course never even slows you down.

 

???? uh, thats becuase they only extended marriage to gays. If instead of Hawaii creating the Hawaii Commission on Homosexuality to rewrite the marriage laws, they had instead created a Hawaii Commission on Marriage, they might of extended marriage to any two consenting adults who desired marriage and likely not even half of the same sex marriages today would be between gays.

 

Another deliberate falsehood. Repeatedly refuted.

 

In sum, Defendants have failed to carry their burden, and we conclude that the classification imposed by the Marriage Laws based on sexual orientation is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. Accordingly, we hold that the Marriage Laws violate the principles of equal protection and are therefore unconstitutional.

And of course the court is correct- neither you or the state of Penn has shown any important governmental interest in refusing to allow same gender couples to marry.

And that is why you keep losing.

The right to marry is considered a fundamental individual right. And the state can only deny that right with a compelling state interest.

 

And that of course is a baldfaced lie- if you are referring to PA.

Here once again is what the Judge ruled:

Here again is what the court in Penn said

In sum, Defendants have failed to carry their burden, and we conclude that the classification imposed by the Marriage Laws based on sexual orientation is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. Accordingly, we hold that the Marriage Laws violate the principles of equal protection and are therefore unconstitutional.
V.CONCLUSION
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. 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.

The court extended marriage to all same-sex couples- that would be any two consenting adults, not prevented from marrying by any other provisions of the law.

 

beyond that, how would they even tell if a ss couple is gay or not? It really makes no difference.

 

It probably does make a difference in practice. If there were no such thing as same-sex orientation (i.e. that human variation didn't exist), then same-sex marriage would never have even been dreamed up, since there would be zero demand for it. The reason demand exists at all, is because there IS in fact a class of humans whose sexual orientations and requirements imply the need for same-sex marriages. And what is driving the court decisions is the requirement for legal equality for such people. So really, the orientation is primary, and accommodating it in marriage, employment, or other forms of discrimination are knock-on effects of the orientation.

 

Well that is not so much a refinement- as a complete turnaround

here is what you originally said
It's amazing how adamant people of this thread are when the rights of the people are tossed aside by a select few in the courts. That doesn't sound very American. In the past, with ending segregation, these rights were enacted by the people, and ratified by all of the states.

Whose rights do you imagine were 'tossed aside' when the Federal Court ruled that Pennsylvania's laws forbidding same gender couples was unconstitutional?

You claimed that rights were enacted by 'the people' not the courts- and I showed that that was just false.

Now you say that 'they weren't creating a new special class of people- well neither is the court now.

Same gender couples want to get married and send their kids to school- while being married.

Same gender couples want to be treated the same as my wife and I.

Why are you opposed to that?

 

You're looking for sense from a nonsensical argument.

 

You can stop it right there where it confirms my statement and contradicts yours.

 

i know, i just find his replies amusing. and i want to see his answer.

 

LOL- I see you choose to ignore that which you cannot discuss- in reference to your claim that this case only applies to homosexuals

And that of course is a baldfaced lie- if you are referring to PA.

Here once again is what the Judge ruled:

Here again is what the court in Penn said

In sum, Defendants have failed to carry their burden, and we conclude that the classification imposed by the Marriage Laws based on sexual orientation is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. Accordingly, we hold that the Marriage Laws violate the principles of equal protection and are therefore unconstitutional.
V.CONCLUSION
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. 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.

The court extended marriage to all same-sex couples- that would be any two consenting adults, not prevented from marrying by any other provisions of the law.