Comments

  1. FernLaPlante says

    Hopefully they will ignore this and continue or it will spark a public outcry that will push marriage equality forward.

  2. NotSafeForWork says

    No worries. Just another case that will be overturned and add another nail in Cryin Brian and Maggie Moo’s coffin.

  3. jamal49 says

    Well, the judge is correct, I suppose, but the genie’s out of the bottle and there’s no putting it back in. I hope Mr. Hanes and other civil servants of good conscience and good will continue to do the right thing by marrying gay couples until this thing comes to a boil and forces the PA Supreme Court to rule on marriage equality.

  4. Anthony says

    This is just a minor setback. But we have to be consistent. We are arguing that federal law overrules state law in terms of the marriage bans. We can’t support a clerk that is issuing licenses when the state law says he currently cannot. But eventually gay marriage will be legal everywhere.

  5. Jack says

    The judge is right, though the clerk’s actions did serve a valuable purpose while they were still going on.

  6. Michael says

    And exactly how many times is the constitutionality required to go before the courts before we can just settle the matter for good?

  7. Peter says

    This is a solid ruling. We can’t have clerks interpret the laws at the expense of judges, voters,and legislators.

    That said, here’s hoping that PA joins the right side of history sooner rtaher than later.

  8. Jack says

    @Michael:

    Until the state’s highest court rules on the matter, or until the Supreme Court says that extending marriage benefits to gays is mandatory under the United States Constitution.

    @Litper:

    Inappropriate and incorrect. This judge was correct to issue this order. He is doing what the law requires him to do, and that is exactly what a judge is supposed to do. Not rule however you want him to.

  9. pfalzgrae says

    I would think one path forward would be for a same sex couple, who wish to be married, to find a judge to order a county clerk to issue a marriage license on the grounds of the unconstitutionality of the statute. If Mr. Hanes had been ordered by a court to issue licenses none of judge Pellegrini’s judgement would apply. A judge does have the ability to consider the constitutionality of a statute and the higher courts would have to rule on the law not evade judgement as was done here. New Mexico has set this example I say let’s try it here in PA.

  10. Michaelandfred says

    Correct ruling. Now we have 174 couples who have a license and some probably already married, so these can now go to court. I appreciate him standing his ground, or his principles, but if I was a judge I’d have ruled the same. Taking the law into ones own hands, while it might make us feel good or even just, isn’t how things are supposed to be done.

  11. Rich says

    This pretty well follows the script Gavin Newsom initiated in San Francisco by issuing marriage licenses in 2004 despite the then state law which prohibited them. Those marriages were invalidated, but led to the trail of lawsuits that ultimately created marriage equality in California.

  12. Icebloo says

    Gay Americans are STUPID. The U.S. Supreme Court has said denying marriage to gay couples is unconstitutional. That means ALL gay marriage bans in all states should have been wiped off the books immediately. It cost gay people MILLIONS of dollars over many years to BUY that decision from the Supreme Court. I say BUY because that is what you do in American politics. You aren’t GIVEN your rights – you basically make politicians and lawyers rich by buying their services.

    Had the Supreme Court made a ruling on gender issues or racial issues those rulings would apply to ALL states but because we gays are stupid and weak and we accept bull$hit we are still allowing the bans on gay marriage in all of these states. This is our fault for being so pathetic.

    Now we have to raise MILLIONS more money to make more politicians and lawyers rich as we battle state by state to prove what we have already proved – that DOMA is unconstitutional.

    Only in America would gays be so stupid….

  13. DannyEastVillage says

    Uh, No Lipter–killing gay people is not constitutional and is not part of the legitimate responsibility of any department of any state government.

  14. Randy says

    “the proper response is for aggrieved parties to bring an appropriate court action to challenge the law.”

    This will never hold up. No public servant can be compelled to enforce an unconstitutional law, even before it is actually declared to be unconstitutional by any court. Laws don’t “become” unconstitutional (unless the constitution is amended, or the facts change). They ALWAYS were unconstitutional. And nobody legally can be made to enforce that.

  15. Jack says

    @ICEBLOO:

    You clearly haven’t read the Supreme Court’s decision. It did not hold that not extending marriage to gay couples is unconstitutional. Go back and read.

    @RANDY:

    That is completely incorrect. Until the court weighs on constitutionality, the clerk is bound by the law and has to perform duties accordingly. This is the 100% correct legal decision, and I doubt it will even be appealed. Your understanding of how the legal system works is very flawed.