Same-sex marriage: The ACLU lawsuit
Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, says the fact that the American Civil Liberties Union “is turning to the courts to try to redefine marriage takes it out of the hands of the people.”
Swap out the word “marriage” with, say, “slavery” or “separate but equal” or “discrimination” and the full intellectual vapidity of the argument slaps you in the face.
Extrapolating Mr. Geer's logic, discrimination would be sacrosanct as long as a majority of “the people” accepted it. Others, such as state Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga, even favor enshrining marriage discrimination in the Pennsylvania Constitution. Egads.
The ACLU, on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, filed what's believed to be the first challenge to a state law banning same-sex marriage. It contends Pennsylvania's 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
The lawsuit, sure to be followed by others, comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That narrowly tailored ruling was based on the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment.
Thus, the ACLU lawsuit ramps up the legal issues and surely will end up before the high court. And if due process and equal protection truly are the law of the land, and if discrimination truly is unacceptable in any form, Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage prohibition must fall.
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.
- Blaming Israel: A new low
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- Digitized medical records: They’ve become an unsecured threat