Gays Can’t Marry Because They’re Like 12 Year-Olds, Apparently

Pennsylvania’s Republican administration argued in court last week that same-sex couples are no more entitled to marriage recognition than 12year-olds. What prompted this patronizing statement and why is this lame argument actually a positive sign?

For the past few months, a quiet revolution has been happening in Pennsylvania.

The Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes, Philadelphia, has concluded that after the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA Section 3, bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional and as such has started issuing same-sex marriage licenses. In total, more than 150 same-sex couples have received licenses since July 24.

The state’s Republican administration, headed by Tom Corbett and represented by the state’s Department of Health, has launched a legal bid to try to put a stop to this, with the governor’s office arguing this week that the court should not even bother hearing from those couples who have obtained said licenses because their voices are irrelevant as their marriages have no legitimacy.

The governor argues that, based on the state’s statutory — but not constitutional — ban on marriage equality that was passed in 1996, the couples have no grounds to intervene because they are not married and never were. To argue this, the state’s legal team used the following flawed analogy:

“Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old … is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his ‘license’?”

Corbett’s office, facing widespread criticism, has now made it known he personally never approved this exact analogy. Regardless, is there any merit to the underlying claim?

While it may be argued that county officials appear to have pushed the bounds of their authority in issuing marriage licenses before the state’s lawmakers have cleared up the matter of whether a statutory ban on gay marriage is now lawful in this post-DOMA Section 3 landscape, to argue that the couples who have obtained licenses have no right to have their voices heard as to the validity of their marriages seems debatable, especially when considering the state’s own precarious position.

You will have noticed that the state’s attorney general, Kathleen Kane, has so far been absent from this discussion. That is because Kane has refused to defend the ban because, following the DOMA decision, she believes it is now unambiguously unconstitutional. A significant question has therefore been raised as to whether the state’s Department of Health and the Governor’s office has standing to bring about court action without Kane’s involvement.

Moreover, there are questions as to whether the Commonwealth Court which will hear this case on September 4 even has the authority to adjudicate on this matter. This relates to the fact that defendant Hanes is a judicial officer and so the court has said it needs to explore whether it has the power to overrule a determination made by Hanes or whether a higher court’s authority will be needed.

County officials certainly are required to follow the law of the land, but not just that of the state. If local officials believe that the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision invalidated the statutory ban on the basis of the United States Constitution’s promises of equal treatment under the law, as a federal court case launched by the ACLU argues, they could reasonably believe there is no strict impediment to issuing those licenses — that, as is the argument in New Mexico, it would in fact be unlawful to refuse marriage licenses based on those grounds.

Now it may be that the Commonwealth Court will decline to rule on any of the substantive issues raised here and instead provide a temporary injunction against the issuing of any more licenses pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit on the constitutionality of the law.

However, if the best the Republican administration has in its legal arguments is that denying gay couples the right to marry is the same as denying licenses to 12-year-olds, equality advocates may be encouraged that the state apparently has nothing up its sleeve to defend the ban except cheap allusions to child marriage.

Image credit: Thinkstock.


Kevin Reeder
Kevin Reeder5 years ago

The USA likes to think it's progressive but historically it has always been one of the last developed nations to adopt human rights policies. The abolition of slavery, equal rights for all races, women's suffrage, etc. The U.K. and much of Europe put all of these in to practice years before the U.S. finally came around. Some individual states were progressive but as a country it usually takes the U.S. a long time to accept these things.

Donna Ferguson
Donna F5 years ago

stupid viewpoint!

Biby C.
Biby C5 years ago

Is there a prize given out to the one who comes up with the most idiotic statements?

Phillipa W.
Phillipa W5 years ago

OK that's a new one. I guess the fact that the comment sparked an outcry is a good sign, but the comment is not.

Lynn C.
Past Member 5 years ago


Adam Costello
.5 years ago

I'm surprised he didn't trot out the old they will want to marry their dogs argument. Seriously, where is the parallel between 2 consenting fully grown adults and 2 below the age to be able to give consent kids. Same old crap from the bigots.

Patricia H.
Patricia H.5 years ago

sadly noted

Sharon R.
Sharon R5 years ago

I didn't get the analogy at first, but it seems to mean that what is on the books as illegal (in the analogy a pair of 12-year olds marrying) cannot be later permitted without changing the law.

Prima B.
PrimaAWAY B5 years ago


This is a ridiculous statement....

Terry T.
Terry T5 years ago

Nope Marilyn, the analogy is a bad one. Children not being able to marry is because of the lack of ability to give legal consent, that will change as the child gets older. It isn't "illegal" for gays to marry in PA, or anywhere else in the US, there's no criminal penalty for gays marrying, it's only unrecognized, AND until the law is actually changed a passage of time will not allow for same sex marriage.