The Pennsylvania Decision

These rulings are just so much fun to read; I have enjoyed the care with which each judge has carefully and deliberately addressed every argument, no matter how stupid… and then read the comment threads, where ignorant yahoos bring up those same arguments as if it were the first time.

Here is the Pennsylvania decision from minutes ago.

Today, certain citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are not guaranteed the right to marry the person they love. Nor does Pennsylvania recognize the marriages of other couples who have wed elsewhere. Hoping to end this injustice, eleven courageous lesbian and gay couples, one widow, and two teenage children of one of the aforesaid couples have come together as plaintiffs and asked this Court to declare that all Pennsylvanians have the right to marry the person of their choice and consequently, that the Commonwealth’s laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. We now join the twelve federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage

Now, excuse me while I go read the rest of it. Enjoy!

Wow. Having read section 1–the background of the plaintiffs–this is yet another powerful piece of writing.

FWIW, I have heard that this judge is a GWB appointee. Damned liberal activist bastard.


  1. colnago80 says

    One of the interesting decisions of the judge was the finding that heightened scrutiny was appropriate based on past discrimination applied to gay and lesbian individuals. Hopefully, this aspect of Judge Jone’s ruling and his justification for it will be commented on by the legal beagles.

  2. rory says

    This is the John E. Jones III of Dover v. Kitzmiller fame, proving he’s still a badass after all these years.

  3. Trebuchet says

    Black-robed tyrants!

    Of course, when the Supremes reverse all these decisions, they’ll be upholding the will of Cod. Or something.

  4. Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy says

    Heightened scrutiny already applies in the Ninth Circuit, thanks to Abbott v. SmithKlineBeacham. That one was easy to miss because it was an antitrust case, in which the question arose of whether a potential juror had been inappropriately excluded.

  5. Die Anyway says

    Ahh, Satan wins another skirmish but Hark! What do I hear? Faintly at first but swelling to a grand and glorious triumphant sound…

    Onward Christian soldiers
    Marching as to WAR
    With the cross of JESUS
    Going on before…

    Sigh, each win for sanity only strengthens their resolve to take us back 2000 years.

  6. Matt G says

    Jones is one of very few Republicans deserving of respect. Presenting stale, empty arguments for the first time is the beard and butter of the creationist movement.

  7. gshelley says

    That is one of the things that nearly always strikes me with the people moaning about these decisions. They have either not read, or not understood the ruling. Ignoring those who are honest enough to admit that there opposition is religious in nature, they always bring up reasons in support of their position that were thoroughly demolished in the ruling and never address that.
    Reminds me a little of many of the reviews of “The God Delusion”, which frequently would say “What dawkins fails to consider is XYZ”, when chapter 1 had a large section on X&Y, and chapter three was titled “Z” and discussed in in detail

  8. procrastinator will get an avatar real soon now says

    And Governor Corbett will not appeal. Done deal.
    I could even have a brother-in-law brother-in-law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *