Will Pennsylvania Get On The Gay Marriage Bandwagon?
Just six months after their landmark decision overturning key parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and mere days after federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma declared those states marriage bans to be unconstitutional, Pennsylvania officials have asked U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (an appointee of former President George W. Bush) to take us on a ride on the way-back machine – back to 1972 – when the Supreme Court believed same-sex marriage was not a substantial question to be decided by the federal courts. Needless to say, Judge Jones rejected their argument, saying there has been a “sea change” in the law since 1972. Of course Pennsylvania will appeal Judge Jones decision but its doubtful they’ll get very far. In the meantime, Judge Jones has scheduled a status conference for Friday, January 24th where he may set a discovery schedule and trial date.
Way back in 1972, two gay college students named Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis Minnesota. Of course the clerk at the courthouse (whose name happened to be Nelson) denied their request because both of them were men. After they were denied their marriage license, the couple filed a law suit which eventually found its way to the Supreme Court. Rather than deciding on the merits of their case, the justices issued a one sentence utterance informing Richard and James that their desire to get married did not constitute “a substantial federal question.” In short, the clerks decision to deny a marriage license to Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell was inadvertently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Judge Jones is perhaps best known for his handling of one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. In that 2005 decision, Jones barred the Dover Area School District in southern Pennsylvania from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class and said its first-in-the-nation decision to insert it into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state. He called it “a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”
Pennsylvania state Rep. Brian Sims said Jones is adept at handling big cases that are bound for higher courts. “He’s building a very solid and a very complete case in the knowledge that it’s going to the Supreme Court,” Sims said.
The question Pennsylvania authorities will be required to answer in this conference is whether they can show a compelling state interest in banning LGBT couples from marrying. And like every other state that has answered the same question recently, they just don’t have any justification beyond the fact that they just find the whole thing icky.
+ + +
There is hope that someday soon the state of Pennsylvania will it’s grant LGBT residents the dignity of of having the right to marry the person they choose. Until then, LGBT couples living in Pennsylvania (and most other states) remain without any legal protections whatsoever – unless they go to the effort and expense of getting specific legal documents, i.e., living will and medical power of attorney (to empower a partner to make medical decisions and have hospital visitation rights), last will and testaments and/or living trust (to leave property to a partner) and other supporting documents that empower a partner to make decisions about finances, burial and cremation and many other rights denied to same-sex partners who live in non-marriage equality states.
For the most part, couples who can afford these documents will get them. Many LGBT couples are struggling financially because of the economic downturn. For them, Rainbow Law’s state-specific will and trust packages provide an affordable alternative – and their free advance directives are available to any LGBT person who asks.
If you or anyone you know needs legal documents to empower and protect an LGBT relationship, you really ought to give Rainbow Law a try.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.