Montco Will Issue Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples

Bruce Hanes
Bruce Hanes

Another front has opened in the battle over same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. Montgomery County Register of Wills Bruce Hanes said Tuesday that he will issue marriage licenses to any same-sex couple that requests one.

“Based upon the advice of [my solicitor], my own analysis of the law and mindful of the Attorney General’s belief that Pennsylvania’s marriage laws are unconstitutional, I decided to come down on the right side of history and the law, and was prepared to issue a license,” to a same-sex couple that had contacted him, Hanes said in a press release.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane announced this month that she will not defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriages, which is being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Hanes’ announcement adds to the murky legal questions surrounding the issue in Pa. and nationwide.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California prohibition against same-sex marriage in June, but without legal clarification Pennsylvania’s ban remains in effect.

It’s unclear what the immediate ramifications of Hanes’ policy will be. Armed with a license, a couple could conceivably have stronger standing should they choose to challenge the state’s 20 year old ban on same-sex marriage. But without a specific couple to push the issue, it remains dormant.

“I’d be giving them a marriage license,” Hanes said, and what they would do with it would be a “tactical decision” for their attorney.

Likewise, most if not all benefits of legal marriage come from the state and federal government. It’s not clear whether a same-sex could could circumvent Pennsylvania’s ban and seek federal recognition.

No state or county official can stop Hanes without legal action; in his role as the official in charge of issuing marriage licenses, he answers only to the court system.

“My understanding is [opponents] would have to find a court to file an injunction against it,” Hanes said. “I’m thinking at this point it would be the Corbett administration.”

The betrothed couple withdrew their request – and canceled a scheduled press conference – at the last minute for legal reasons, their attorney Michael Diamondstein told Patch.

“While Mr. Hanes and his office were ready and willing to issue the first same-sex marriage license in the history of Pennsylvania, my clients chose not to go forward because they were extremely concerned that the issuance of the marriage license would be challenged on procedural grounds without the Courts ever addressing the actual issue of marriage equality,” Diamondstein said.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the ACLU advised the women to withdraw.

Hanes, a Democrat, was first elected in 2007.

8 Responses

  1. Ryan-
    The Supreme Court is populated by a majority of douchebags who think “corporations are people” and at least one pinhead who thinks Virginia v. Love (that outlawed bans on interracial marriages) was decided wrong. This current court has been systematically setting civil and individual right backwards, while advancing corporations and their own religious beliefs.

    The anti-gay bans are clearly unconstitutional breaches of equal protect under the laws, and civil-unions are a bullsh*t attempt at “separate but equal” (a.k.a: unequal).

    Here is a relevant snippet from the Declaration of Independence:
    “..That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..”

  2. These officials are not above the law. Challenge this law legally or step down. If this were any other issue, they’d be fired.

  3. David Diano… if the law was so unjust, the Supreme Court would have taken the opportunity to strike it down entirely recently, but did not.

    I support same sex marriage and if I was a member of the legislature I would sponsor a bill to legalize same sex marriage, but I support the rule of law which means the laws as written must be followed with the fanatical zeal of a religious zealot.

  4. David, maybe so, but there is a process for casting such a law into the dustbin. And executive officials simply refusing to enforce the law is not that process.

    Let’s not forget that the state version of DOMA sailed through our legislature with bipartisan support in 1996. This was right around the time that Bill Clinton signed the federal DOMA into law. So it wasn’t such a strange concept in a time not long ago.

  5. When a law is so unjust that no one will obey it, no one will enforce it and no one will defend it, then it joins its place in the dustbin of history.

  6. I personally don’t care and infact think that polygamists are getting a raw deal, but the law is pretty clear and now this guy is possibly opening himself, his office, and his county up to litigation. should stay on the sidelines while the case against Bucks Re3gister of Wills plays out.

Comments are closed.

  • Reader Poll: Have You Requested a Mail-In Ballot?

    • Yes. I enjoy mail-in voting. (50%)
    • No. I am going to the poll. (50%)

    Total Voters: 121

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen