Federal judge rules same-sex marriage ban in Pennsylvania unconstitutional

A federal judge Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's law prohibiting same-sex marriage, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution.

With the ruling, the Keystone State joins a host of others in which judges have struck down existing laws restricting marriage to between one man and one woman. All such decisions have been stayed, pending appeals.

"Because these laws are unconstitutional, we shall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement," U.S. District Judge John E. Jones wrote of Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage restrictions. "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."

What proof is there that any legislator involved in the passage of the 14th Amendment had any “intent” to outlaw discrimination against homosexuals? Has any court addressed this question?

There are many current issues where conservatives wind up saying "we know what they meant", or "we know the thinking of the 18th century which could only mean they must have meant..."

The Constitution does not explicity state that the Bible is the basis for our legal system.

In fact, the Constitution is silent on morality.

So regarding a moral issue like sodomy, the Constitution is an open-ended document. The laws Congress passes can thus impose all the immorality the current Congress wants to impose and yet still be Constitutionally valid. Laws Congress passes can even reverse prior moral viewpoints, then reverse yet again, as often as Congress likes.

I doubt very many in the general public at the time of its ratification, in their wildest dreams, would ever think the open-ended nature of the Constitution would be used to codify American acceptance of immorality into law.

IMHO, it's painfully obvious at this point that some very devious people at the time purposely wanted a very short and unspecific document, precisely so it would be completely open-ended and allow this sort of perversion of the nation far in the future.

The "Enlightenment" period was laid the foundation for our modern-day secular humanism, and at the forefront were the forerunners of today's financial elites, a.k.a., globalists, etc., which are supremely immoral people who wholly reject and defy God.

Some detailed study of the British East India Company is a good place to start to see the connections. Amazingly, the company's flag, decades prior to the American Revolution, bears a striking resemblence to the American flag.

I would love to hear just when the hell some federal court actually DOES rule on some issue in favor of actually following the Constitution. I’m pretty damn sick of these jerks finding all this stuff in there that was never there.

The Constitution does not specify its moral foundation. This allows complete freedom to judges to make up their own morality as they render their judgements.

Of course, we've always seen SCOTUS decisions overturn prior SCOTUS decisions, even though this is logically inconsistent and reflects simple political bias or correctness at best. For example, if slavery is constitutional one day, then 20 years later is unconstitutional, the issue is the same, it's just that the court that has changed its mind.

Today's judges are not even restricting themselves to basic common sense or fundamental logic. They no longer present a legal reasoning, they just rationalize their preconceived result. We're a hair's breadth from simply ruling by decree in the manner of a mad tyrant.

The strategy is not new, however. The leading international parasitical banking families/interests have always sought out the legal system as a target to permeate then corrupt in nations they target as "hosts". In both Europe and the UK, members and minions of banking families very early on maneuvered into position to be able to practice law.

The ruling (http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf) says there is a fundamental right to marry from Planned Barrenhood v Casey, and ‘the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children’ are not ‘“important” state interests’.

No, what the court said was: “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.”

So, in other words, Pennsylvania screwed up.

The governor's legal team certainly bears its share of the blame - and I'd say all of it, if the judge was tasking into account only what the defense presented out of a sense of judicial restraint. But a ruling that in its first sentence refers to "the right to marry the person they love" (as Tina Turner sang, "What's love got to do with it?") and in its third calls the plaintiffs "courageous" cannot be accused of judicial restraint. The judge did whatever was necessary to reach the predetermined conclusion.

And not one single Repub governors in any of these states with the balls to issue a governor’s executive order which nullifies & repeals the RAT bastard federal judge’s order. If the RAT bastard dems were seeing 0bamaCare ruled unconstitutional like this, they would just ignore the ruling altogether. Not the cowardly Repubs however.

I’m just curious as well, regarding the so-called judicial logic in all of a sudden declaring traditional marriage amendments to now be ruled as “Unconstitutional bassed on Section 1 of the 14th Amendment”. If that is their argument, then why did it take 8-10 years after most of the marriage amendments to have been passed, to all of a sudden activist judges are suddenly ruling against state marriage amendments? Why not 8-10 years ago?

in Utah a judge has already legalized polygamy.

this is not about expanding marriage this is about eliminating marriage.

The ABA in their model family law code has ALREADY eliminated children from marriage and made them a legal accessory and only incidental.

This model code is the law inbedded in all states.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.