Mar 29, 2010
Activist Judge In Pennsylvania Overturns Supreme Court – Rules Marriage Is Not A Fundamental Right
In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the prohibition against inter-racial marriage in Loving v Virginia. In their ruling the Justices stated that:
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….
The odious laws which made inter-racial marriage illegal came from an 18th century interpretation of race based on the bible:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
The same reasoning is being applied today by christains seeking to legislate “traditional marriage” based on biblical law.
Almighty God fashioned marriage between one man and one woman.
There was no compelling reason other than blatant racism in not allowing inter-racial marriage and that same logic applies to the homophobic laws restricting same-sex marriage today. States must have a compelling reason other than “because we don’t like homosexuals” to deny the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of marriage to Gay and Lesbian Americans.
A Pennsylvania judge has said no to a lesbian pair seeking a divorce — and a state-based family advocate is applauding that decision.
Carole Ann Kern and Robin Lynn Taney were married in June 2009 in Massachusetts, where homosexual “marriage” is legal. When they did not meet the residency requirements to file for divorce in that state, they returned to their home state and filed there. But Berks County Judge Scott Lash ruled as “unsupportable” the couple’s argument that same-sex marriage passes the test for being a “fundamental right.”
“This is a plea for social change,” the judge wrote. “If homosexuals had a fundamental right to be married to each other, this plea would be unnecessary.”
Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania reacts to the judge’s ruling. “Well, I think we have at least one good judge in Pennsylvania,” she comments. “It was encouraging that he ruled that this lesbian couple could not get a divorce in Pennsylvania, because Pennsylvania does not recognize their marriage to begin with.”
Diane GramleyIt is refreshing, remarks the family advocate, that Judge Lash did not act as an activist judge, but instead ruled on the basis of current state law. The judge did rule that the two had a right to privacy. But…
“The second [question] was whether that right to privacy guarantees a right to marriage, is basically what he said,” Gramley explains. “And the other [question] was [whether] the fundamental right of marriage contemplate[s] same-sex marriage.”
And to both questions, the judge answered no. Lash also wrote the following in his ruling:
“Courts should be reluctant to identify a right as fundamental when not clearly required by the Constitution or established precedent. A court who finds a fundamental right where none exists bypasses the legislative process and denies the people a voice in effecting social policy, in essence, trumping democracy by judicial fiat.”
Pennsylvania has a Defense of Marriage law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Efforts in the legislature to send the issue to the people in the form of a constitutional amendment failed for a third time recently. Gramley is hopeful more conservatives will win in the November elections so a fourth effort might have a better chance at passage.
via Same-sex ‘marriage’ not a ‘fundamental right’ (OneNewsNow.com).
Gay and Lesbian Americans do have a fundamental right to marry in the United States. Five states and Washington D.C. have already recognized this by enshrining marriage equality into their laws.
On June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of Loving v Virgina, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement on the ruling.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
Support candidates who embrace full marriage equality for all Americans.
[...] link: Activist Judge In Pennsylvania Overturns Supreme Court – Rules … Helpful [...]