- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
- Soldier who hid, bragged about not saluting flag to be punished — in secret
- ‘Maverick’ of the seas: ‘Top Gun’ school for U.S. ship officers to launch
- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
Landmark gay-marriage hearing approaches in Pennsylvania
Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, delegated defense of the marriage law in a federal lawsuit to Mr. Corbett, a Republican. Ms. Kane’s position has been that the law, which limits marriage to between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
The court also directed the lawyers to address whether the Health Department has standing to file the case and, if not, the implications of Ms. Kane’s position.
“This case is about one thing: whether a local official may willfully disregard a statute on the basis of his personal legal opinion that the statute is unconstitutional,” Mr. Corbett’s lawyers wrote in a filing last week.
A spokesman for Mr. Corbett’s Office of General Counsel, Nils Frederiksen, said local officials such as Mr. Hanes don’t have the authority to disregard state law based on their personal legal opinion.
“Decisions about the constitutionality of a state law are in the hands of a court,” Mr. Frederiksen said.
Mr. Hanes‘ legal team has said the Health Department needs to be more specific about whatever harm it thinks could occur and has argued there is a conflict between the state’s marriage law and Mr. Hanes‘ oath to uphold the national and state constitutions.
The state’s marriage law, they wrote this month, “affects a fundamental human right, and precludes an entire class of individuals from enjoyment of that right.”
“We went into it not really knowing what it would mean for us legally,” Ms. Glusman said, but the hope was they’d get the same rights their married siblings have.
“It causes a lot of unease,” Ms. Glusman said, adding that the couple is “disheartened and actually fearful” over what may happen if the Corbett administration prevails in the case.
“We were both born and bred here. We don’t want to move,” Ms. Glusman said.
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
- CPAC 2014: Rand Paul urges conservatives to fight for liberty
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- Two liberals say Sarah Palin is right: Obama lacks substance
- Unemployment insurance vote could happen next week
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- WEBER: Obamacare cuts home healthcare for millions of seniors
- Russias Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again