Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

"New" meaning the two most recent appointments to the S Ct as opposed to the other 7 prior appointments

 

Well lets look at that quote

The Court did not evaluate hypothetical justifications for the law but rather focused on
the harm resulting from DOMA, which is inharmonious with deferential review.
See, e.g., McGowan v. State of Md., 366 U.S. 420, 425-26 (1961) (explaining that,
under rational-basis scrutiny, legislatures are presumed to have acted
constitutionally “despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some
inequality,” and “[a] statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of
facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it&#8221.

Indeed, far from affording thestatute the presumption of validity, Windsor found DOMA unconstitutional
because “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and
to injure.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2696 (emphasis added

This is part of an argument regarding whether to treat this case with 'deferential review'- which is a small part of page 28 in a 39 page judgement.

The conclusion is rather more explanatory

In terms of state interests served by Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws,
Defendants advance the following: the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and
the well-being of children, tradition, and economic protection of Pennsylvania
businesses. Defendants appear to defend only the first two aims, stating that
numerous federal and state courts have agreed that responsible procreation and
child-rearing are legitimate state interests and providing extensive authority for
that proposition. Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are
“legitimate,” advancing no argument that the interests are “important” state
interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny. Also, Defendants do not
explain the relationship between the classification and the governmental
objectives served; much less do they provide an exceedingly persuasive
justification. In essence, Defendants argue within the framework of deferential
review and go no further. Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no 14
argument engaging the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to
fathom an ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated
under this more-searching standard.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh the 7 previous lesbians?

 

The quoted text from the Penn case says otherwise. Their entire argument rest upon
the claim that the "purpose" of the statute is "to disparage and injure" the homosexuals.
And the legitimate purpose is more children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home, working together to provide and care for the child, and fewer children born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers. NOT an intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. The claim is absurd.

 

And the court said that the State of Pennsylvannia was as unconvincing with that argument as you are

The conclusion is rather more explanatory

In terms of state interests served by Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws,
Defendants advance the following: the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and
the well-being of children, tradition, and economic protection of Pennsylvania
businesses. Defendants appear to defend only the first two aims, stating that
numerous federal and state courts have agreed that responsible procreation and
child-rearing are legitimate state interests and providing extensive authority for
that proposition. Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are
“legitimate,” advancing no argument that the interests are “important” state
interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny. Also, Defendants do not
explain the relationship between the classification and the governmental
objectives served; much less do they provide an exceedingly persuasive
justification. In essence, Defendants argue within the framework of deferential
review and go no further. Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no 14
argument engaging the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to
fathom an ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated
under this more-searching standard.

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.

 

I SAID "two most recent appointments", not lesbians.

 

Heightened scrutiny as opposed to some other level based upon their claim that the statute is intended to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

Here is the ruling- feel free to point out the section which says that

http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf

The court went into some analysis of historic discrimination against homosexuals, and in the end agreed with Windsor that they are a 'quasi'suspect' class.

The court does not base its ruling on any claim of intent to discriminate.

 

Nice try Dixon but the only thing that's absurd is you. SFJeff delt with the issue with aplomb, facts and intelligence.....something that you should try . You should also try to muster some integrity instead of repeatedly avoiding pertinent facts. We rest our case

 

AH! I suddenly see the light. Here I always thought it was a matter of Thomas having his head lodged permanently up Scalia's butt, but now I can see that that Thomas is the submissive "wife" in their relationship.

 

The total of his post was two sentences-

And a longer quote from the court decision. None of that quoted text contradicted the quote I provided or anything I claimed. And since he was quoting and responding to MY post, THAT was the "issue".

What pertinent facts would that be?

 

no they don't.

- - - Updated - - -

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

same sex marriage has no effect on this one way or the other. which is why it's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded argument to use against same sex marriage, and why it's laughed out of every court it's been argued.

- - - Updated - - -

which will only last for about another 5 years at best.

- - - Updated - - -

which is unconstitutional.

 

????The only reason they are examining historic discrimination against homosexuals and whether sexual orientation is a quasi suspect classification is because they have already made the factual determination that the statute was enacted with the "purpose", the intent to "to disparage and injure" homosexuals. To discriminate against homosexuals.
The state argues marriage limited to men and women is rationally related the legitimate governmental interest in responsible procreation. More children with both their mom and dad and fewer with just their mom and an absent or unknown dad. The distinction of sex is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest. Only moms and dads produce their children.
The courts reply that no, the statutes that make no mention of sexual orientation, that only mention sex, is in fact not a distinction based upon sex, but is instead a hidden classification based upon sexual orientation with the purpose to "disparage and injure" homosexuals and so insist that the state present an "important" governmental interest that is served by seeking to "disparage and injure" homosexuals to justify such discrimination. OF COURSE there is no justification for disparaging and injuring homosexuals. The limitation to husbands and wives was NEVER intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. The claim is absurd.

 

There are times when I wonder if you realize that words have meanings. That spate of laws and amendments was a direct response to California's same-sex battle. The clear purpose of every bit of it was to do everything possible to ensure that same-sex couples could not marry, or be recognized AS married, in their states. The record of legislative intent is unambiguous.

And the courts are pointing out that prohibiting same-sex marriage in fact injures and disparages those not permitted to marry. It says "you are second class citizens whom the majority has decided are unworthy of the rights and privileges we decent people have and deserve."

 

Feel free to point out where in the article that court made that determination.

 

Wouldn't the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment require states to allow gay marriage? Constitutionally speaking?

 

Except your not making an argument based in constitutional law. That's why you keep losing in court.

 

There is no judicial fiat. They are simply bound by the plain language of the 14th amendment.

 

Because a state ban specifically banning homosexuals from marriage is in their best interest, lol.

Your argument get dumber and dumber by the day.

- - - Updated - - -

The statute specifically discriminates against homosexuals.

 

I said it wasn't "intended to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.". Notice how you didn't even mention sexual orientation

 

No. You could argue the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment require states to allow marriage between consenting adults. Nothing special about those who happen to be "gay" that would justify different treatment.

 

Under that reasoning, 2 consenting same sex adults would be allowed to marry. It wouldn't be different treatment, it would be equal treatment as heterosexual couples.

 

You see with Dixon all logic fails if it means there is no real argument against same sex marriage. He is completely committed to his agenda and even if it makes no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sense he will shuck and jive until he has convinced himself that there is no possible way that Ssm is remotely capable of being law. Yet it's inevitable.

Let the poor kid have his delusion.

 

The single mother and grandmother raising their Children/grandchildren together are "2 consenting same sex adults" excluded by law from "gay marriage". DIFFERENT treatment by design.

- - - Updated - - -

Shakers claim was demonstrably false.

 

90% of yours are.

 

I demonstrated Shakers claim was false. You people couldnt demonstrate anything, let alone demonstrate any claim of mine is false.