- Jun 6, 2007
- 852
- 483
- 910
Governor Corbett is failing Pennsylvania to an outstanding degree in not appealing this Federal Court case which found Pennsylvania's law banning same sex marriage unconstitutional! This court ruling if allowed to stand will permanently create a culture across our state which promotes homosexuality that will result in a lot of harm to individuals and their families and friends who get caught up in that lifestyle who otherwise would not. Governor Corbett says he is not appealing this case because he believes the Commonwealth case is so weak there is no chance of winning so it is not even worth it to appeal.
Governor Corbett is wrong it is not at all clear what the U.S. Supreme Court will do when it hears this issue I personally believe that the Supreme Court will find for the states deferring to state's will on this issue because to do otherwise would create too much public unrest which they do not like to do, the American public has strong feelings on this issue they will not accept gay marriage across the nation. Many states across the nation are in Pennsylvania's boat where the Federal courts have found their law prohibiting gay marriage to be unconstitutional and so the Supreme Court cannot leave this important area of the law unclear they have to take one of these cases soon certainly within the next four years the American people will know one way or another whether gay marriage is a constitutional right why can't Governor Corbett protect Pennsylvania communities from this harm for this short period of time?
All these cases around the nation where the Federal Court is finding the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional is primarily based on a Supreme Court decision from last year U.S. v Windsor. These Judges are being too aggressive with their interpretation of this case they are letting public pressure to legalize gay marriage influence their rulings and I think they will find that the Supreme Court can't be driven by the small but vocal gay marriage lobby they have bigger considerations they must contend with. Also, these Judges are ignoring the constitutional experts who are saying that the Supreme Court intended the Windsor case to just exclude "federal" law from not recognizeing same sex marriages they deliberately did not address the state law issue here. For some background the Windsor case was about an 83 year old women Ms. Windsor from New York who lived in a same sex union with Ms. Spyer for forty years they married in Canada and New York law recognized the marriage Ms. Spyer dies and Ms. Windsor has to pay to the IRS $363,000 in estate taxes because Ms. Windsor is not eligible for the spousal estate tax exemption because of the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as solely between a man and a women and so Ms. Windsor sues alleging the DOMA law is unconstitutional. Many constitutional experts construe the Windsor case where Ms. Windsor won as saying nothing about what states cannot do it just applies to federal law because of the key language at the end of the opinion -second to the last sentence in the opinion- which said "This opinion and its holdings (that DOMA is unconstitutional) are confined to those lawful marriages (states that recognize or allow same-sex marriages)" plus the court in its opinion spends seven pages going on about how states have the authority to define marriage history and tradition in America have made this so and don't even use this reasoning to support their legal decision in the case experts think the court made this move to speak loudly and clearly that this opinion is not to impede in any way states rights in passing laws banning gay marriage if they so choose.
Frankly, I would not be surprised if one day the Supreme court distinguishes between the right to live in a same-sex marriage type union with all marriage type benefits and the right to a same sex marriage "license" saying the constitution establishes a right for the former but not the latter because this would allow states to work their will on this issue and it would allow gay couples to get all the important legal rights they are denied presently in gay marriage ban states like on issues involving social security, hospital stays, housing, taxes, pension, health care, etc.. This essentially would be adopting the civil union answer on this issue for the country essentially saying that gay couples that live in a state where same-sex marriages are not legal have a right to a civil union which would give them all the important aforementioned rights gay couples cite in legal cases for finding laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional. This would allow those states that ban gay marriage to continue such a ban and continue to have the policy behind such laws which they hold dear which is the traditional family comprised of the union of a man and a women and the children they raise is a bedrock of our society and offers the best environment for raising children.
If the Supreme Court wants to make this distinction they have laid the groundwork for this in the Windsor case. In the Windsor case, the Court essentially said DOMA is unconstitutional because there is a liberty right rising out of the fifth amendment that is being violated here; unfortunately, it does not precisely define that liberty right. Consider that the Supreme Court could clarify this law in the following way. In the latter part of the Windsor opinion it says that Congress cannot violate liberty rights provided in the fifth amendment and for almost two pages prior to that statement the Supreme Court describes numerous ways by which same sex couples are wronged by federal law when federal law does not recognize these unions. For instance, it deprives them of federal health insurance benefits, subjects them to disparate treatment in the bankruptcy code and the IRS code, deprives them from being buried together in veteran cemeteries, deprives them of protections in the crime code, increases their taxes on healthcare benefits, deprives them of social security benefits deprives them of responsibilities on school loans and various ethic requirements. And shortly before this part of the opinion the Supreme Court essentially writes that society is allowed to have an evolving understanding of the intimate relationship between two people and the value it places on that relationship. The Supreme Court has laid the groundwork to come out in a future opinion and write that there is a fifth amendment liberty right for people to be able to live in same-sex marriage type unions where they are entitled to all the important benefits and responsibilities of heterosexual marriages and this is because of the laws understanding that society views on marriage are allowed to evolve. At the same time the Supreme Court can say there is no liberty right for same sex couple to get a marriage license; a license represents societal approval it represents sanctioning certain behavior it represents promoting certain behavior and states do not have to do this when it comes to gay marriage; this would allow states to have their gay marriage ban laws and gay couples to get their important rights!
Another big reason why the Supreme Court is probably not in the foreseeable future going to come out and say there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is a reason Judge Alito referenced in his dissenting opinion in the Windsor case when he wrote "At present, no oneincluding social scientists, philosophers, and historianscan predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. ". Once the Supreme Court creates this right of a same-sex marriage America is stuck with this right forever from a practical standpoint and a lot of Americans who get caught up in the homosexual lifestyle resulting from this right and their loved ones could be hurt over this development over time. Many Americans if not most Americans believe homosexuality is solely not a born trait it is also an environmental acquired trait meaning that people can voluntarily or involuntarily (through assault) change their nature to homosexual. The Supreme Court saying there is a right to gay marriage will create and/or ingrain throughout our society the belief that it is not a big deal if your homosexual people shouldn't worry about their abandoning or losing their heterosexual identity and this is extremely bad for young people who often question or have doubts about their sexuality and this knocking down of the barriers that exist here could and will lead young people into choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle and in some cases lead to significant negative social, psychological, emotional and spiritual consequences for them if they do so. The Supreme Court is responsible enough to see there is unknown long-term ramifications like this with such a ruling and won't gamble with America's future in such a manner!
On the Pennsylvania case blocking Pennsylvania's ban on same sex marriage, Whitewood v Wolf, Federal Judge John Jones uses as his justification that he believes the constitution establishes a right for a person to marry a person of their same sex, although he does makes a great effort to find Supreme Court authority to support his decision his decision stretches beyond these references. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't stretched that far and likely won't for the reasons stated in this writing. Governor Corbett needs to wake-up and recognize his appeal on this case would have a lot of merit. It is widely believed that Tom Corbett is choosing to not appeal here to help his reelection bid. Governor Corbett is making an extremely and epic foolish decision if this is the case. The odds are super super high Governor Corbett does not win reelection for a mountain of reasons. First, the elephant size issue in this campaign is the current shortage of state aid for Pennsylvania's school districts Governor Corbett has cut back on education funding over his term - Pennsylvanians really care about this issue they believe our children should have great education opportunities and the state of schools in a community is critical for the well-being of that community people don't move to communities where the schools are bad; Tom Wolf is right and mainstream on this issue tax the gas shale industry at a normal rate and use to proceeds to solve the education funding gap Tom Corbett is largely planless on this issue. The public persona of Governor Corbett is that he is a heartless special interest corrupted Governor on the order of that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker this is seen in his actions during his term of throwing tens of thousands of children off the health insurance rolls, canceling adult basic health insurance for the working poor, cutting a modest welfare program for abused women, drug addicts and families with dependent Pennsylvanians, making it harder for needy Pennsylvanians to get food stamps, et.. Large swaths of Pennsylvania voters are not voting for a candidate like this. Tom Corbett's only chance for winning reelection lies with Christian conservatives he needs them to be rallied big time to go out and vote and he can just forget it if he sells them out by quitting the fight to preserve the institution of marriage as a union only between a man and women. Governor Corbett has thirty days from the date this federal court decision was filed, May 20th, to appeal the case which means he still has three days to do so, if he in any way sincerely wants to be re-elected governor he better tell his staff to file that appeal brief!
Governor Corbett is wrong it is not at all clear what the U.S. Supreme Court will do when it hears this issue I personally believe that the Supreme Court will find for the states deferring to state's will on this issue because to do otherwise would create too much public unrest which they do not like to do, the American public has strong feelings on this issue they will not accept gay marriage across the nation. Many states across the nation are in Pennsylvania's boat where the Federal courts have found their law prohibiting gay marriage to be unconstitutional and so the Supreme Court cannot leave this important area of the law unclear they have to take one of these cases soon certainly within the next four years the American people will know one way or another whether gay marriage is a constitutional right why can't Governor Corbett protect Pennsylvania communities from this harm for this short period of time?
All these cases around the nation where the Federal Court is finding the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional is primarily based on a Supreme Court decision from last year U.S. v Windsor. These Judges are being too aggressive with their interpretation of this case they are letting public pressure to legalize gay marriage influence their rulings and I think they will find that the Supreme Court can't be driven by the small but vocal gay marriage lobby they have bigger considerations they must contend with. Also, these Judges are ignoring the constitutional experts who are saying that the Supreme Court intended the Windsor case to just exclude "federal" law from not recognizeing same sex marriages they deliberately did not address the state law issue here. For some background the Windsor case was about an 83 year old women Ms. Windsor from New York who lived in a same sex union with Ms. Spyer for forty years they married in Canada and New York law recognized the marriage Ms. Spyer dies and Ms. Windsor has to pay to the IRS $363,000 in estate taxes because Ms. Windsor is not eligible for the spousal estate tax exemption because of the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as solely between a man and a women and so Ms. Windsor sues alleging the DOMA law is unconstitutional. Many constitutional experts construe the Windsor case where Ms. Windsor won as saying nothing about what states cannot do it just applies to federal law because of the key language at the end of the opinion -second to the last sentence in the opinion- which said "This opinion and its holdings (that DOMA is unconstitutional) are confined to those lawful marriages (states that recognize or allow same-sex marriages)" plus the court in its opinion spends seven pages going on about how states have the authority to define marriage history and tradition in America have made this so and don't even use this reasoning to support their legal decision in the case experts think the court made this move to speak loudly and clearly that this opinion is not to impede in any way states rights in passing laws banning gay marriage if they so choose.
Frankly, I would not be surprised if one day the Supreme court distinguishes between the right to live in a same-sex marriage type union with all marriage type benefits and the right to a same sex marriage "license" saying the constitution establishes a right for the former but not the latter because this would allow states to work their will on this issue and it would allow gay couples to get all the important legal rights they are denied presently in gay marriage ban states like on issues involving social security, hospital stays, housing, taxes, pension, health care, etc.. This essentially would be adopting the civil union answer on this issue for the country essentially saying that gay couples that live in a state where same-sex marriages are not legal have a right to a civil union which would give them all the important aforementioned rights gay couples cite in legal cases for finding laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional. This would allow those states that ban gay marriage to continue such a ban and continue to have the policy behind such laws which they hold dear which is the traditional family comprised of the union of a man and a women and the children they raise is a bedrock of our society and offers the best environment for raising children.
If the Supreme Court wants to make this distinction they have laid the groundwork for this in the Windsor case. In the Windsor case, the Court essentially said DOMA is unconstitutional because there is a liberty right rising out of the fifth amendment that is being violated here; unfortunately, it does not precisely define that liberty right. Consider that the Supreme Court could clarify this law in the following way. In the latter part of the Windsor opinion it says that Congress cannot violate liberty rights provided in the fifth amendment and for almost two pages prior to that statement the Supreme Court describes numerous ways by which same sex couples are wronged by federal law when federal law does not recognize these unions. For instance, it deprives them of federal health insurance benefits, subjects them to disparate treatment in the bankruptcy code and the IRS code, deprives them from being buried together in veteran cemeteries, deprives them of protections in the crime code, increases their taxes on healthcare benefits, deprives them of social security benefits deprives them of responsibilities on school loans and various ethic requirements. And shortly before this part of the opinion the Supreme Court essentially writes that society is allowed to have an evolving understanding of the intimate relationship between two people and the value it places on that relationship. The Supreme Court has laid the groundwork to come out in a future opinion and write that there is a fifth amendment liberty right for people to be able to live in same-sex marriage type unions where they are entitled to all the important benefits and responsibilities of heterosexual marriages and this is because of the laws understanding that society views on marriage are allowed to evolve. At the same time the Supreme Court can say there is no liberty right for same sex couple to get a marriage license; a license represents societal approval it represents sanctioning certain behavior it represents promoting certain behavior and states do not have to do this when it comes to gay marriage; this would allow states to have their gay marriage ban laws and gay couples to get their important rights!
Another big reason why the Supreme Court is probably not in the foreseeable future going to come out and say there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is a reason Judge Alito referenced in his dissenting opinion in the Windsor case when he wrote "At present, no oneincluding social scientists, philosophers, and historianscan predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. ". Once the Supreme Court creates this right of a same-sex marriage America is stuck with this right forever from a practical standpoint and a lot of Americans who get caught up in the homosexual lifestyle resulting from this right and their loved ones could be hurt over this development over time. Many Americans if not most Americans believe homosexuality is solely not a born trait it is also an environmental acquired trait meaning that people can voluntarily or involuntarily (through assault) change their nature to homosexual. The Supreme Court saying there is a right to gay marriage will create and/or ingrain throughout our society the belief that it is not a big deal if your homosexual people shouldn't worry about their abandoning or losing their heterosexual identity and this is extremely bad for young people who often question or have doubts about their sexuality and this knocking down of the barriers that exist here could and will lead young people into choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle and in some cases lead to significant negative social, psychological, emotional and spiritual consequences for them if they do so. The Supreme Court is responsible enough to see there is unknown long-term ramifications like this with such a ruling and won't gamble with America's future in such a manner!
On the Pennsylvania case blocking Pennsylvania's ban on same sex marriage, Whitewood v Wolf, Federal Judge John Jones uses as his justification that he believes the constitution establishes a right for a person to marry a person of their same sex, although he does makes a great effort to find Supreme Court authority to support his decision his decision stretches beyond these references. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't stretched that far and likely won't for the reasons stated in this writing. Governor Corbett needs to wake-up and recognize his appeal on this case would have a lot of merit. It is widely believed that Tom Corbett is choosing to not appeal here to help his reelection bid. Governor Corbett is making an extremely and epic foolish decision if this is the case. The odds are super super high Governor Corbett does not win reelection for a mountain of reasons. First, the elephant size issue in this campaign is the current shortage of state aid for Pennsylvania's school districts Governor Corbett has cut back on education funding over his term - Pennsylvanians really care about this issue they believe our children should have great education opportunities and the state of schools in a community is critical for the well-being of that community people don't move to communities where the schools are bad; Tom Wolf is right and mainstream on this issue tax the gas shale industry at a normal rate and use to proceeds to solve the education funding gap Tom Corbett is largely planless on this issue. The public persona of Governor Corbett is that he is a heartless special interest corrupted Governor on the order of that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker this is seen in his actions during his term of throwing tens of thousands of children off the health insurance rolls, canceling adult basic health insurance for the working poor, cutting a modest welfare program for abused women, drug addicts and families with dependent Pennsylvanians, making it harder for needy Pennsylvanians to get food stamps, et.. Large swaths of Pennsylvania voters are not voting for a candidate like this. Tom Corbett's only chance for winning reelection lies with Christian conservatives he needs them to be rallied big time to go out and vote and he can just forget it if he sells them out by quitting the fight to preserve the institution of marriage as a union only between a man and women. Governor Corbett has thirty days from the date this federal court decision was filed, May 20th, to appeal the case which means he still has three days to do so, if he in any way sincerely wants to be re-elected governor he better tell his staff to file that appeal brief!
