[ConservingFreedom]

Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.

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'.

And it has some of the most blatant soapboxing I've ever seen in a ruling. The judge must be planning to run for legislative office - or retire to a cushy advisory position with a left-wing 'think' tank.

[Regulator]

'the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children' are not ' “important” state interests'

Gee, and here I thought that a Free Society would have the right to make those very things important for the continuity and stability of their society

Silly Me

[ConstantSkeptic]

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.