Local Couples Part of a Lawsuit to Legalize Gay Marriage in PA (Pittsburgh: fit in, condo)

[youngabe]

I was quite shocked, in a good way, to see this:

Federal lawsuit seeks to legalize gay marriage in Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

I was even more shocked to know that I've met one of the Plaintiffs in the case. I can safely say, she is a good person to have in this suit. She's a very professional, educated individual.

We all predicted that suits like this would be popping up all over in response to DOMA being overturned. It's only a matter of time. A quick news search of the ACLU shows a number of lawsuits coming out in the past few days in all sorts of states.

The PA lawsuit comes a few days after Brian Sims, introduced a bill in the House for same-sex marriage in PA:

Gay marriage bill introduced in state House

I still am embarrassed, frankly, that Pittsburgh, with all of its new, positive happenings is part of the state of Pennsylvania. Hopefully these are the people it will take to change PA's archaic image and continue to further the growth of cities like Pittsburgh.

[CaptainPittsburgh]

I'm really hoping the Supreme Court ruling acts as an opening of the floodgates across the nation. It seems like this is already the case, at least in terms of lawsuits being filed in various states. Sure would be nice to see some sweeping changes over the next year.

I've already been notified of two potential wedding invitations, pending PA getting its act together!

[Geeo]

Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry) must be going into convulsions over this. Best of luck to the plaintiffs. Pennsylvania needs to be kicked into the 21st century. And it's an embarassment that we're almost the last state in the northeast without marriage equality. That will hurt us in the long run.

[UKyank]

I think that filing this in state court would have made a lot more sense - both of the Supreme Court decisions last month implied state authority for defining marriage issues rather then federal authority.

[Joe Magarac]

It would be even better for the plaintiffs and others to lobby the legislature to change the law in PA so that gay couples can marry. If the change is made through the courts, it will be Roe v. Wade all over again - the court decision will cause a minority of voters to feel as though they were stripped of their right to vote on what marriage is and what the laws on marriage should be.

People forget that when Roe v. Wade was decided, six states had already legalized abortion and many others were moving in that direction. The Southern Baptists and most other Protestant churches were not opposed to legal abortion at that time. Had the Supreme Court punted or limited its decision, the democratic process in those other states would have changed the abortion laws in due course. Instead, by getting out ahead of popular sentiment, the Court created the religious right as we know it today.

I can understand why gay marriage proponents want the law changed, pronto, without going through the trouble of getting it changed through the Democratic process. But by choosing this course, the ACLU has all but ensured that there will be vicious fights over gay marriage for decades, with lots more lawsuits coming in the years ahead.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Joe Magarac

It would be even better for the plaintiffs and others to lobby the legislature to change the law in PA so that gay couples can marry. If the change is made through the courts, it will be Roe v. Wade all over again - the court decision will cause a minority of voters to feel as though they were stripped of their right to vote on what marriage is and what the laws on marriage should be.

People forget that when Roe v. Wade was decided, six states had already legalized abortion and many others were moving in that direction. The Southern Baptists and most other Protestant churches were not opposed to legal abortion at that time. Had the Supreme Court punted or limited its decision, the democratic process in those other states would have changed the abortion laws in due course. Instead, by getting out ahead of popular sentiment, the Court created the religious right as we know it today.

I can understand why gay marriage proponents want the law changed, pronto, without going through the trouble of getting it changed through the Democratic process. But by choosing this course, the ACLU has all but ensured that there will be vicious fights over gay marriage for decades, with lots more lawsuits coming in the years ahead.

My partner and I will be together 2.5 years on July 20, and despite our ups and downs I plan to propose to him as soon as same-sex marriage is legalized here in our Commonwealth. Right now I'm the only one out of a very large network of heterosexual high school friends who has yet to wed or become engaged, and to say I feel "left out" is an understatement. When you're advocating people like me waiting until "popular sentiment" (i.e. the moronic mainstream) plays a game of "catch up" you're not factoring all of the same-sex couples in our country who have been together for DECADES and who have been treated inequitably during that time. Haven't they waited long enough?

Most recent polling suggests the majority of Pennsylvanians DO support same-sex civil equality. I have a feeling if it were put onto the ballot as a referendum this November it would be legalized; given our lackluster state leadership, though, I wouldn't bet on this reaching voters anytime soon. A lot of you don't realize that not everyone in the rural "T" of PA is an uneducated redneck. Many of my own relatives in suburban Scranton ascribe to a FOX News-oriented mindset, yet in private they confide that they really do support me and my "cause" for marriage equality. These people are just afraid to buck the norm themselves, and they conform to that old adage of "Pennsyltucky" for that reason, lest they, too, be ostracized.

I'm glad nobody told Rosa Parks or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to wait for "popular sentiment to evolve" before starting their long overdue revolution. If they had just stayed silent it may have been decades longer until African-Americans started to secure their own civil equality. I suggest you watch the movie The Help if you have not already done so. It really opened my eyes to the courage that both blacks and whites alike had to muster up in the South in order to bring about positive change.

One of my favorite high school teachers once pulled me aside after class when he noticed that I was "dumbing myself down" in order to better fit in with peers. He said it's better to have others strive to ascend to a greater level of intellectual prowess than to have someone with great potential shortchange themselves. I feel the same way about civil rights. Let those who want to see justice occur be bold and brave, dragging the laggards kicking and screaming into the 21st Century instead of the other way around.

To this day I have tremendous respect for Massachusetts. Why? They were #1.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

My partner and I...

I agree with your main point, but just two items to nitpick here - 1. Pennsylvania can't have a referendum on the issue as per state law; 2. Using Mr King & Mrs Parks goes against you're argument to the proceeding post- their actions changed popular opinion & got legislation passed on the civil rights issues; the courts were not the battleground, the legislatures were.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I agree with your main point, but just two items to nitpick here - 1. Pennsylvania can't have a referendum on the issue as per state law; 2. Using Mr King & Mrs Parks goes against you're argument to the proceeding post- their actions changed popular opinion & got legislation passed on the civil rights issues; the courts were not the battleground, the legislatures were.

The "got out ahead of popular sentiment..." comment from Joe Magarac is the one that just really struck a nerve with me, and that's what I latched onto. I'm presuming I may have taken it out of context, but I don't EVER want a decision in this country based upon equality or justice to be delayed based upon waiting for "popular sentiment" to change or for people's mindsets to "evolve over time". Jack Wagner used the latter phrase regarding his stance on social issues like gay marriage, and he was slaughtered in the primary election by Bill Peduto, an outspoken liberal, partially because of it. You're either in the 21st Century, or you're going to be dragged into it in my mind.

Take me as a prime example. I personally oppose abortion (outside of cases of rape or when birth would jeopardize the mother's health) because after my religious upbringing I've never been able to "evolve" myself past picturing it as "convenient voluntary baby killing" based upon someone being drunk and forgetting a condom or birth control and causing an unborn child to suffer the consequences. With that being said I recognize popular opinion has changed on abortion, and I'm probably now in the minority who oppose it, which is why I'm fine keeping my opinion to myself and carrying on with my life, unlike opponents to same-sex marriage who apparently can't. The thought of "Adam and Steve" vs. "Adam and Eve" causes some people so much anguish that they just have to make themselves heard on every public forum. On the same token I'll go toe-to-toe with them in debates until they're blue in the face.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

The "got out ahead of popular sentiment..." comment from Joe Magarac is the one that just really struck a nerve with me, and that's what I latched onto. I'm presuming I may have taken it out of context, but I don't EVER want a decision in this country based upon equality or justice to be delayed based upon waiting for "popular sentiment" to change or for people's mindsets to "evolve over time".

This I agree with

In regards to abortion which has nothing to do with this thread I do find it very interesting aside that one of the biggest opponents of abortion currently is the 'Jane Roe' from Roe v Wade

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I'm the only one out of a very large network of heterosexual high school friends who has yet to wed or become engaged

Say it isn't so.

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I'm presuming I may have taken it out of context

It would be a better universe today if there had never been a religious right, and by my reading, that's all Joe was trying to say.