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.
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.