Whitewood v. Wolf
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68771
| M.D. Penn. | 2014Background
- Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and void or refuse recognition of same-sex marriages.
- The 1996 statute changes added anti-ceremony and anti-recognition provisions; similar laws spread after Hawaii and state legislative action.
- Plaintiffs include eleven same-sex couples, a widow, and two teenage children seeking to marry or have out-of-state marriages recognized.
- Plaintiffs allege wide-ranging harms from the laws, including inheritance tax, second-parent adoptions, and lack of recognition impacting health, finances, and family stability.
- Several plaintiffs describe personal hardship from non-recognition of marriages performed elsewhere and associated administrative burdens.
- Plaintiffs seek declarations that the Marriage Laws violate Due Process and Equal Protection and a permanent injunction against enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Marriage Laws violate the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause? | Plaintiffs (Gilfill??) contend same-sex marriage falls within core right to marry. | Defendants assert the right to marry does not include same-sex marriage. | Yes; same-sex marriage is within the fundamental right to marry and laws are unconstitutional. |
| Do the Marriage Laws violate the Due Process Clause by denying recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages? | Plaintiffs claim non-recognition infringes their liberty and existing marriages are devalued. | Defendants argue recognition is not compelled by the Constitution. | Yes; non-recognition violates due process. |
| Do the Marriage Laws fail to meet equal protection standards for classifications based on sexual orientation? | Plaintiffs contend heightened scrutiny should apply to sexual orientation classifications. | Defendants argue rational basis should apply. | Yes; laws fail intermediate scrutiny and are unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (privacy and liberty in intimate relationships; supports autonomy for homosexuals)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (DOMA unconstitutional; equal dignity of same-sex marriages)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (right to marry as fundamental; anti-miscegenation invalid)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1965) (marriage as a protected, intimate relationship; privacy interests)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (due process framework and fundamental rights analysis)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (fundamental right to marry persists with restrictions)