Advocates cheer Downtown as Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage
Rainbow flags waved. Couples kissed. One man skipped through the crowd throwing glitter.
A crowd gathered Wednesday morning in a blocked-off section of Liberty Avenue in Downtown and erupted in celebration as the Supreme Court announced its rulings on two landmark gay marriage cases. Elsewhere, others expressed concern and called the development a “major blow.”
“I knew we were not going to have a riot. I knew we would rejoice,” said Gary Van Horn, president of the Delta Foundation, which organized the “Riot or Rejoice” rally to watch the decisions.
The court's 5-4 decisions ruled legally married same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples and cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California.
The rulings dismayed some religious groups. Bishop David Zubik of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh said the decisions contained troubling aspects, particularly equating a gay relationship to marriage.
“This can only further undermine our understanding of the true nature of marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman for their good, and the good of their children. We weaken that understanding much to our peril as a people and a nation because marriage is not merely a private institution, or a private matter, but foundational to society,” Zubik said.
The Pennsylvania Pastors' Network called the decisions a “major blow” to traditional marriage and a turn away from the biblical definition of marriage.
Outside the August Wilson Center for African American Culture, where about 300 people gathered, Mackenzie Greenert and Erika McCue wrapped their arms around each other as they awaited word of the court's ruling.
“It's amazing,” said Greenert, 23, of Bloomfield. “I can't wait for it to be legal everywhere.”
“It's all about the small steps,” said McCue, also 23, of Bloomfield. “And this is an amazing small step.”
Former Pennsylvania senator and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the Supreme Court overstepped its role and ruled in opposition to the will of the people.
“Time and time again, when the definition of marriage has been put before the people, we have affirmed the unique and irreplaceable role the union of a man and a woman play in society,” Santorum said.
Some Pittsburgh and Allegheny County politicians praised the court's decision.
“Welcome to full equality,” Pittsburgh councilman Bruce Kraus of the South Side, who is openly gay, told the crowd.
Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald congratulated the Supreme Court on its ruling.
“What a great day for America,” Fitzgerald told the crowd. “They did it. They got it right.”
Councilman Bill Peduto, the Democratic candidate for mayor of Pittsburgh, called the ruling a historic moment as he addressed the crowd.
Josh Wander, the Republican candidate for mayor, opposes same-sex marriage but supported the Supreme Court rulings. He said the law should treat people equally.
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Scranton, said the ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was a step toward strengthening equal rights for all. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Lehigh Valley, did not issue a statement Wednesday afternoon.
Staff writer Mike Wereschagin and the Associated Press contributed to this report. Aaron Aupperlee is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7986 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Polamalu could be next in long line of Steelers greats given unceremonial exit
- Mother, baby found dead in Millvale apartment
- Weather continues to cause crashes, public transportation delays
- Over the falls — Cucumber Falls that is — go 3 kayakers in Ohiopyle
- Wolf reverses Corbett, says deal between Highmark, UPMC doesn’t limit continuity of care to very ill
- Rossi: Kang would benefit from less attention
- Pirates pitcher Locke fighting for 5th spot in starting rotation
- Penguins’ Lovejoy embracing defensive pairing with Pouliot
- Loose barges on Monongahela River highlight woes of winter’s end
- Alcoa may close or sell some aluminum plants to cut costs
- Experts: Clinton took dangerous path with email system