Pennsylvania DOMA challenged in federal court

Three Pittsburgh-area couples were named plaintiffs in a lawsuit that demanded the recognizance of same-sex marriages under Pennsylvania state law, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in a Harrisburg federal court Monday. 

The three couples from Allegheny County, who joined 10 other couples and one widow statewide in the lawsuit, included Deb and Susan Whitewood, of Bridgeville, joined as litigants by their daughters Abbie, 16, and Katie, 14; Fredia and Lynn Hurdle, of Crafton Heights; and Dawn Plummer and Diana Polson, of Point Breeze. 

Philadelphia law firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller joins the ACLU in filing the lawsuit, which names a number of state and county government officials, notably Gov. Tom Corbett and State Attorney General Kathleen Kane, as defendants.

The lawsuit also names state Health Secretary Michael Wolf, whose agency provides marriage licenses requiring the name of a bride and groom, as well as two county Register of Wills, Donald Petrille, of Bucks County, and Mary Jo Poknis, of Washington County. Poknis is named in the lawsuit because her office refused to offer a marriage license to the Whitewoods.

Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Office of the General Counsel, said attorneys in the office were currently reviewing the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit asserts that Pennsylvania’s 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and woman, has been invalidated in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the national Defense of Marriage Act two weeks ago. 

Under the 5-4 decision, the court invalidated a federal law that defined marriage as between one man and one man. It did not, however, clarify whether the right to marry is a constitutional right, nor did it eliminate laws banning gay marriages in states nationwide. 

Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director and an attorney in the case, said in an ACLU press release that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit share almost all of the same characteristics of legally married couples.

“The couples in this lawsuit are united by love, family and commitment, which are the cornerstones of marriage. They are married in every sense of the word, except one —  under Pennsylvania law,” he said. 

According to the lawsuit, legislators who enacted the original amendment banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania had a “moral opposition to same-sex marriages … and support of the traditional family unit” as well as a belief that the tax benefits extended to same-sex couples could adversely affect taxpayers within the state. 

Legislators at the time, the lawsuit states, also believed that children raised by same-sex couple parents could miss out on the benefits provided by a heterosexual couple.

The lawsuit refutes all three arguments, saying that overwhelming evidence has arisen over the last 17 years to disprove them.

“None of these justifications — or any other justification that might now be offered — passes constitutional muster,” the lawsuit states. 

Shortly after news broke of the filed lawsuit, organizations in support of heterosexual marriage statewide began formulating their responses. Brandon McGinley, field director for the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the decision to attempt to change the definition of marriage through the legal system excluded the state’s electorate from the process.

“It is disappointing to see this strategy being used,” McGinley said. 

McGinley said that the Pennsylvania Family Institute planned to alert supporters across the state of the ACLU lawsuit, though he acknowledged that it would be difficult to alter the process since the ACLU decided to wage a “behind-the-scenes battle” on the definition of marriage through the legal system. 

For the lawsuit’s supporters, however, the filing of the lawsuit presented yet another step toward social equality in Pennsylvania. Deb Whitewood, who entered into a civil union in Vermont with her partner, Sue, in 2001, said in an ACLU press release that she joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff in hopes of one day enjoying the benefits already extended to heterosexual couples.

“We only want what every married couple wants —  to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family and the security and protections that only marriage provides,” she said.