Gay Marriage Issue Entangles Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett

With the State Attorney General of Pennsylvania stating that she will not defend Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage and some county clerks issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples and one mayor conducting marriages, the hot potato issue of gay marriage has landed firmly in the lap of Pennsylvania's GOP governor, Tom Corbett (pictured above).  It's an issue that is probably a lose-lose situation for Corbett, whose popularity has plummeted, but the Christofascists in the GOP base will be screaming for his head on a pike if he does not defend the law.  Politico looks at Corbett's unwanted position.  Here are highlights:

Defending a divisive gay marriage ban is probably not the fight Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett would have chosen 15 months ahead of an election he’s widely expected to lose. A majority of Pennsylvanians now support same-sex marriage, a dramatic shift from just a few years ago.  But the issue has been thrust in the first-term Republican’s lap — and the politics may not be all bad for him.

Corbett’s decision to stand by the state’s 1996 ban will help shore up his shaky support among Republicans and all but eliminates the possibility of a primary challenge from the right, strategists said.

But the conflict between Corbett and Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, also prolongs a conversation about an increasingly unpopular law when the governor is struggling to pick up every vote he can. A June poll out of Quinnipiac University said that Corbett, who is in his first term, has a dismal 30 percent favorability rating among Pennsylvania voters.

Although the defense of such challenges ordinarily falls under the purview of the state attorney general, Kane made the rare decision to not to back the law, saying she believes it to be “wholly unconstitutional.”

That put Corbett, one of the least popular governors in the country, in a tough spot: defend a law that a growing number of voters disagree with; or side with Kane and anger the GOP base.  On July 30, he chose the former.

Corbett’s decision adds gay marriage to the list of issues he must juggle ahead of what’s expected to be a vicious reelection fight. His tanking popularity and struggles to push his agenda through a legislature controlled by his own party — privatizing liquor stores, public pension reform and transportation funding — have prompted several Democrats to jump into next year’s race.

Although the decision angered Democrats and could alienate moderate Republicans from the must-win Philadelphia suburbs, analysts said that in defending the law, Corbett all but guaranteed himself a straight shot at the Republican nomination, which had looked to be in jeopardy.

Nevertheless, strategists said the debate over gay marriage will remain at the forefront of Pennsylvania politics in the coming months. The fact that the state’s attorney general and governor are at odds on the legality of a law passed by the state legislature will provide ample fodder for the media.ot

For Corbett, the extended coverage is less than welcome news. In 2006, a decade after the marriage law in question was passed, just 33 percent of Pennsylvanian vers approved of gay marriage. That number shot up by about 20 percentage points in the past seven years.  A February Franklin and Marshall poll found that 52 percent of Pennsylvania voters approve of gay marriage, the first time a public poll registered majority support. This number increased to 54 percent by May.

The ACLU lawsuit isn’t all that’s fueling the gay marriage controversy. The Corbett administration recently sued Montgomery County register of wills D. Bruce Hanes after he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. And the mayor of Braddock, a Pittsburgh suburb, officiated a gay marriage on Monday in defiance of the law.

Slowly but surely catering to the Christofascists will be the death of the GOP.

Read More

Pennsylvania County Begins Offering Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The hate merchants and Christofascists at the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") have their panties in a major wad over the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples by the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, county registry.  Huffing and puffing NOM is calling the actions "lawlessness" even though NOM has no problem violating campaign finance laws all across the country with open abandon.  As always, NOM's hypocrisy is stunning.  The county register rightly determined that Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional in light of the ruling in United States v. Windsor, and therefore began issuing licenses.  Think Progress has details:

Alicia Terrizzi and Loreen Bloodgood obtained a marriage license and were wed a short time thereafter Wednesday in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, despite a state law banning same-sex marriage. The County’s Registry of Wills, Bruce Hanes, had been contacted by another couple earlier in the week about the possibility, and after consulting with his solicitor, Michael Clarke, decided that issuing same-sex licenses was the proper way to honor his oath to uphold the Pennsylvania constitution:

Based upon the advice of Mr. Clarke, my own analysis of the law and mindful of the Attorney General’s belief that Pennsylvania’s marriage laws are unconstitutional, I decided to come down on the right side of history and the law…

When I took the oath of office 19 months ago, I swore to uphold the U.S. and the Pennsylvania Constitutions. Article 1 Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, aptly entitled “Inherent rights of mankind,” says “all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which is “pursuing their own happiness.”

Article 1, Section 26 of the Constitution says, “Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right.”

Furthermore, Article 1 Section 28 says, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.”

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane announced earlier this month that she would not defend a federal challenge to the state’s law banning same-sex marriage because she believes it to be unconstitutional. Unlike many states, Pennsylvania does not have a constitutional amendment enforcing discrimination against gay couples, only a state law. A group of 23 plaintiffs, including ten couples, two of their children, and a widow, are challenging that law in federal court.

The fate of these marriages is unclear, but for now, Hanes has the support of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, who called it a historic day. Presumably, he will continue to offer such licenses unless some form of legal action prevents him from doing so.

Read More

PA Pastors Attack Attorney General for Refusing to Defend Unconstitutional Law

With all the corruption, hypocrisy and batshitery that surrounds much of organized religion - not to mention the fact that there is supposed to be no established religion in America - elected officials and the media continue give far to much attention and deference to those peddling myths based on stories passed down from wandering nomads of 2,500+ years ago and the unkown authors of the New Testament.  A case in point is the collective conniption fit by a bunch of wingnut pastors in Pennsylvania who are beside themselves with Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane who has refused to defend that state's unconstitutional DOMA law against a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.  The Pittsburg Gazette looks at the spittle flect protestations of these windbags.  Here are highlights:

Citing Biblical verses, a group of pastors and conservative GOP state House members called on Attorney General Kathleen Kane to reconsider her decision not to defend the state's law against same-sex marriage.

Ms. Kane, a Democrat, made national headlines last week when she announced her decision not to defend the 1996 law, saying she believes it is unconstitutional. The law will now most likely be defended in a federal lawsuit by the Corbett administration's Office of General Counsel.

 

On Wednesday morning, a group from the Pennsylvania Pastors Network and several Republican House members said they believe Ms. Kane must reconsider.

 

"The issue is one of defending heterosexual marriage," said Sam Rohrer, president of the pastors network. Mr. Rohrer is a former state representative and 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate before losing in the primary to now- Gov. Tom Corbett.

 

Mr. Rohrer added, "We see a moral imperative for heterosexual marriage due to the revealed truth of God based on eternal law."

It is far past time that fundamentalist religious belief be eliminated from the nation's laws both  at the state and federal level.  These pastors are free to belive whatever garbage they want, but they do NOT have the right to force their ignorance and bigotry on others.  Would that politicians had the spine to tell them so.  One article reader summed up reality well:

Nothing at all is happening to heterosexual marriage. There is nothing about "traditional marriage" that needs defending. The marriage equality movement was never an effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone. The overwhelming majority of humans are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay couples do the same.

These laws are all about stigmatizing and punishing gays for refusing to conform to the Christofascists' dogma.  It's all about animus and nothing else.  Which is precisely why DOMA was struck down in the Windsor ruling.  

Read More

Gay Marriage Lawsuit Puts PA Governor Tom Corbett in Bind

Other than slashing social safety net programs, nothing warms the heart of the Christofascist base of the GOP more than bashing gays and stigmatizing us in every way possible.  However, with the rapid rising in support for gay marriage, we may be about to see an example of where pandering to the party base could prove toxic in a general election.  The case in point is Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett (pictured above) who must decide whether or not to defend Pennsylvania' anti-gay marriage law now that that state's Attorney General has announced that she will not defend the law which she describes as "wholly unconstitutional."  A piece in Politico looks at the quandry that Corbett faces.  Here are highlights:

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, who’s suffering from low approval ratings and has a tough reelection battle looming next year, is facing yet another politically difficult decision: whether or not to stand up for the Keystone State’s same-sex marriage ban.

State Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, said Thursday that she wouldn’t defend the ban in court — raising the issue on a state level for the first time since the Supreme Court ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Since Kane has declined to defend the law, the responsibility falls to Corbett to decide what to do. Pennsylvania General Counsel James D. Schultz said in a statement Thursday afternoon that Corbett’s office “will continue to review the lawsuit” — and took a swipe at Kane.

Corbett faces a rock-and-hard place decision. If he opts to defend the law — he’s expressed support for it in the past — Corbett will draw ire from a Democratic base that already despises him. If he chooses not to defend it, he risks alienating the members of his own party he needs for reelection next year.

By defending the law, said Muhlenberg College pollster Chris Borick, Corbett would be “going counter to general public opinion in the state — but he has to worry first about his very lukewarm support within his own party.”

GOP strategist Ray Zaborney said he doesn’t think the issue “cuts one way or another” in the state. But Zaborney said Democrats are certain to attack the governor if he defends the law.

The GOP should never have allowed the Christofascists to hijack the party and take over city and county committees.  These people are zealots and extremists and, in my view, will yet be the death of the GOP.

Read More

Suit Filed Challenging Pennsylvania DOMA - Attorney General Won’t Defend "Unconstitutional" Law

Making good on its promise, the ACLU filed suit today in federal court challenging Pennsylvania's anti-gay DOMA law.  The ACLU has promised to file suits shortly in both Virginia and North Carolina challenging those state's anti-gay state constitutional amendments.  Here in Virginia, a new poll shows that 55% of Virginians now support gay marriage.  That, of course will mean nothing to self-loathing closet case, Attorney General/GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli who will no doubt defend Virginia's animus based amendment and dutifully following orders dictated to him by the Christofascists at The Family Foundation.   But back to Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (pictured above) has said that she will not defend the statute because it is "wholly unconstitutional" in the wake of the holding in United States v. Windsor.  Now, the question is whether or not GOP Governor Tom Corbett will step forward to defend the anti-gay law.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

Pennsylvania attorney general Kathleen Kane announced Thursday afternoon she will not defend the state in a federal lawsuit filed this week challenging the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, calling the prohibition “wholly unconstitutional.”

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit Tuesday on behalf of 23 Pennsylvania residents, including 10 couples, a widow and two children, naming Kane and the state’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett as defendants. Kane’s move, announced to reporters at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, places the burden of defending the law on the governor’s general counsel. Corbett supports the prohibition on same-sex marriage, which passed the state legislature in 1996.
“If there is a law that I feel that does not conform with the Pennsylvania state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, then I ethically cannot do that as a lawyer,” she said.

Thomas Peters, spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage, said Kane’s refusal to defend the ban represented a sort of “pocket veto” of the law.

Kane framed her decision both in terms of her constitutional obligations and her commitment to Pennsylvania residents, saying that in a choice between defending the law and serving the public, “I choose you.”

Mary Catherine Roper, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said she and others involved in the lawsuit were “celebrating” in the wake of Kane’s announcement.

“To have the highest law enforcement official of the Commonwealth come out and say, ‘I agree with you, this law is unjust, that’s huge for us,’” Roper said in a phone interview, her voice audibly emotional.

However the the state GOP chairman Rob Gleason released a statement calling it “unacceptable for Attorney General Kathleen Kane to put her personal politics ahead of her taxpayer-funded job by abdicating her responsibilities.”

As a licensed attorney of over 35 years, I believe that Kane has taken the ethically correct posture.  As an attorney - which she is - she is ethically bound NOT to make false and fraudulent arguments to the Court.  With the decision in Windsor so clearly zeroing in on the anti-gay animus that was behind the federal DOMA law - the same type of anti-gay animus that was behind both the Pennsylvania law and the constitutional amendments in Virginia and North Carolina - to defend such a law law that is based on nothing but animus and extreme religious beliefs could theoretically expose an attorney to sanctions by the Court and disciplinary actions by the applicable state bar.  Not that such concerns will constrain Ken Cuccinelli and similar Christofascists who deem themselves above the laws and rules that govern the rest of us.   Religious belief has no place in the civil laws of the states or the nation.

Read More

ACLU to Challenge Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Ban

As noted in a post back in March, a Harvard Law School professor predicted that combined decisions as handed down in Perry and Windsor would open a flood gate of lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans and disparities on federal benefits based on the state of one's residency even if couples legally married in a pro-gay marriage state.  That prediction seems to be about to come true as the ACLU prepares to file a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban.  Similar lawsuits are likely to multiple in other states with gay marriage bans.  The Daily Times looks at this development.  Here are story highlights:

The American Civil Liberties Union said it will file the first known legal challenge Tuesday seeking to overturn a state law effectively banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania, the only northeastern state that doesn't allow it or civil unions.

The lawsuit, to be filed in federal court in Harrisburg, also will ask a federal judge to prevent state officials from stopping gay couples from getting married. It names Gov. Tom Corbett, Attorney General Kathleen Kane and three other officials. The plaintiffs are one widow, 10 couples and one of the couples' two teenage daughters, and they include four couples who were legally married in other states but whose marriages go unrecognized by the state of Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs, including Deb and Susan Whitewood, who have been together for 22 years, said their willingness to join the lawsuit was driven both by a desire to have the same legal and financial protections afforded to opposite-sex couples and the emotional satisfaction of seeking social justice.

"I wanted our relationship to be respected like everybody else's relationship," said Susan Whitewood, 49, who lives in the Pittsburgh suburb of Bridgeville. "That was first and foremost the reason for doing this. I wasn't looking for legal validation."

Her 16-year-old daughter, Abbey, who is also a plaintiff, said she is excited to fight for her family's values.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU said banning gay marriage satisfies no legitimate government or child welfare concerns of the state, since Pennsylvania judges routinely grant adoptions to same-sex couples that are viewed as in the best interest of the child.  "It serves only to disparage and injure lesbian and gay couples and their families," the lawsuit said.  For instance, the suit says, same-sex couples do not have access to a long list of legal and financial protections as do opposite-sex couples.

Those include an inheritance tax exemption for widows; an automatic power of attorney for spouses in health care decisions; damages and legal recourse under workers' compensation laws for a spouse who dies or is injured in the workplace; assistance programs for same-sex widows and widowers of military personnel and veterans; pension and survivor benefits for widows and widowers of public employees; Family Medical Leave Act provisions; and a spouse's Social Security retirement benefits.

In Pennsylvania, recent polls show a majority are in favor of gay marriage. In 2012, the state voted for President Barack Obama, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, and in 2010 for Corbett, a Republican who supports a constitutional amendment to permanently ban it. Bills to legalize gay marriage have gone nowhere in recent years in the Legislature, and Corbett's predecessor, Democrat Ed Rendell, did not favor the legalization of same-sex marriage while in office.

Read More