News | Pennsylvania

Federal Court Rejects Bid to Appeal On Pennsylvania's Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

10384058_876297385729809_338472546650234793_nYesterday, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a motion to appeal the ruling striking down Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban.

The attempt came from Court Clerk Theresa Santai-Gaffney, of Schuylkill County. Santai-Gaffney has not been dissuaded by the court's judgement; she plans to climb the judicial ladder and take her argument to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Check out the official court documents from the court embedded AFTER THE JUMP.

For those who need a refresher, on May 20, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones struck down Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage. Without an immediate stay on the ruling, gay couples were immediately allowed to marry.

In his decision, Judge Jones deemed the ban illegal, citing a violation of the "Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

[h/t CBS Philly]

 

14-3048 #70016 Summary Dismissal by Equality Case Files

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Oh, honey, you're not going to have standing no matter how high you try to climb on the judicial ladder. Go to your miserable room and stop wasting everyone's time, Theresa.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 5, 2014 11:57:36 AM


  2. Ernie,

    With this court, I wouldn't take that bet.

    Posted by: Phoenix Justice | Jul 5, 2014 12:09:58 PM


  3. Someone should be fired for not doing her job.....

    Posted by: androjai | Jul 5, 2014 1:10:47 PM


  4. Even though Ms. Santai-Gaffney is making a fool out of herself and has not declared that she is probably making all these appeals in the name of religion, she is a perfect test case for marriage equality. And, basically these courts are saying she has NO standing in these type of cases and that she should mind her own business. But in the mean time we can watch the appeal process and continue to laugh at this foolish woman.

    Posted by: Bernie | Jul 5, 2014 4:30:07 PM


  5. It is a bit far-fetched that she represents the state. She doesn't even represent her own county. Her job is to do some secretarial works as determined by state laws.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 5, 2014 8:51:56 PM


  6. Nice to see the commenters have a better grasp of the case than the off-the-issue refresher that Towleroad supplied.

    Posted by: Will | Jul 6, 2014 11:07:32 AM


  7. She is required to apply Pennsylvania state law, which prohibits marriages between same-sex couples.

    Posted by: TKinSC | Jul 6, 2014 11:11:29 AM


  8. No @TKINSC, she is required to follow the U.S. District Court decision. She's free to voice her disapproval of that ruling but her thoughts on it are wholly irrelevant.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 6, 2014 11:26:13 AM


  9. Tkinbsc:
    I would shut my trap if I were you. She does not represent the state. A third-grader knows that. She can say she doesn't understand the judge's ruling. Then she needs to clarify it with the AG. If she still doesn't want to do her job, she will be sued. She will be a defendant, not a plaintiff.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 6, 2014 12:19:23 PM


  10. Tkinsc:
    You have been under the rocks for so long you need some news updates.
    On May 20, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones struck down Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage. Governor and AG didn't appeal. It is the new law of the state. You should know the clerks are required to follow the current laws, not the ones yesterday or the ones a century ago if you were not sleeping in your high school civic classes.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 6, 2014 12:27:32 PM


  11. Tkinsc:
    We heard that you have been banned from a site. Is that why you are coming back here. Not that we don't want you here. At least you can provide some kind of comic relief.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 6, 2014 12:35:07 PM


  12. Marriage Equality: Coming to your State sooner than you ever imagined. Come on baby, drive South. We're looking forward to meeting you.

    Posted by: mdnc | Jul 6, 2014 1:16:52 PM


  13. It is possible that she is a NOMee or just a good Christian convinced by NOM to delay the inevitable. NOM is so desperate since things have taken a sharp turn that they were left in the dust. The have failed to stand in for the state. Now they are trying to invent another test case, no matter how ridiculous it is.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 6, 2014 4:56:16 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance Likely To Be Opposed On November Ballot« «