Statewide Reactions to SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Decision

supremecourtToday, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry.

You can read the opinion here.

The following is a running tally of reactions from public officials throughout the state.

Governor Tom Wolf:

“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that no American can be denied the right to marry because of who they love. This historic ruling is a victory for LGBTQ Pennsylvanians and allies. ‘Gay marriage’ is now simply marriage and the pursuit of happiness will no longer be denied for same-sex couples.

“On the heels of the Supreme Court’s action today, the Pennsylvania legislature should stand-up and pass non-discrimination for LGBTQ Pennsylvanians, so that they can no longer be discriminated against in employment or housing for being who they are.”

Senator Bob Casey:

“Today’s ruling is a substantial victory for equality across our nation. This was the right decision and will ensure that all couples will be treated with basic dignity when it comes to marriage. As a U.S. Senator representing Pennsylvania, I have heard from many LGBT Pennsylvanians and their families who want nothing more than equal rights under the law.  As one mother from Pennsylvania said in a letter to me:

‘My kids have two proud and loving parents who are honest [and] work hard.  I want my kids to know they are equal and our family is equal . . . I just want my family to be treated equally and with respect by my state and federal government.’

From this day forward that family that wrote to me and millions of LGBT families across the nation can know that their family is equal.”

Lieutenant Governor Mike Stack:

“I applaud the United States Supreme Court for ruling in favor of equality and human rights, and I congratulate members of the LGBTQ community for winning the fight they have waged for so long.

“Love prevailed in the Supreme Court decision. The pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right that dates back to the very founding of this nation. LGBTQ rights are human rights, and everyone deserves to be able to marry the person they love.

“I’m proud to support marriage equality in Pennsylvania and beyond.”

Congressman Charlie Dent:

“The Supreme Court’s action today in Obergefell v. Hodges settles the Constitutional issue of marriage equality in this country. Marriage equality has been the law of the land in Pennsylvania for over a year now. Life is too short to have the force of government stand in the way of two adults whose pursuit of happiness includes marriage. As a Republican, I value equality, personal freedom and a more limited role for government in our lives. I believe this philosophy should apply to the issue of marriage as well. That said, churches and other religious institutions should never be compelled by the government to perform wedding ceremonies that violate basic tenets of their faith.

To all those Americans today who are able to marry their loved ones and have that marriage recognized everywhere throughout the country, congratulations.”

Congressman Chaka Fattah:

“Today, I join with millions across our great nation in celebrating this landmark decision to affirm marriage equality in the United States of America. Now, LGBTQ individuals will have the right to marry whomever they choose, wherever they choose. Now, all families will have equal, protective rights and benefits in all 50 states.

“This is a monumental step forward in our country’s pursuit of equal rights for all. Today, everyone who has fought so hard for this moment can stand proud knowing that marriage is a fundamental right. It is a proud day for America, because love has won.”


Attorney General Kathleen Kane:

“Today’s landmark Supreme Court decision affirming the legality of same sex marriage is a victory not only for same sex couples, their families and children, but affirms the rights of all citizens for equal treatment under the law. Our great nation spends billions of dollars protecting the civil rights of human beings around the world.  It is appropriate that in our system of justice, we vigorously defend our Constitution in every instance and protect the civil liberties of those here at home as well.”

State Representative Brian Sims:

“I am thrilled for our country that the Supreme Court has come down on the side of equality. At the same time, I am concerned for people who are at risk of getting fired for getting married. In most of Pennsylvania and many other states, it is still legal to fire someone or deny them an apartment, a hotel room or a table in a restaurant because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.”

State Representative Dan Frankel:

“Today is a day for celebration as marriage equality is firmly enshrined in law. But we must not lose sight that it remains legal to deny our family, friends and neighbors jobs, housing or a public accommodation such as a restaurant table because of who they are. That is wrong, is un-American and about 70 percent of Pennsylvanians have agreed for years that we need laws against that type of discrimination.”

Philadelphia Mayoral Democratic Nominee Jim Kenney:

“Today’s ruling is a tremendous victory, but it is also a call to action. Philadelphians must rally together and demand a statewide non-discrimination law that protects on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. As one of the most LGBT friendly cities in the nation, it is our responsibility to continue fighting until complete equality is a reality in every corner of this state and this country.”

Congressman Mike Kelly:

“The high court had a responsibility to follow the Constitution but instead chose to follow the wishes of a political movement. The natural, traditional definition of marriage that I and millions of others believe in worldwide remains a cornerstone of human civilization. To redefine this institution, especially on a national scale, carries uncertain consequences and deserves serious scrutiny. Today’s ruling rips this critical debate from the democratic process by redefining marriage for all 50 states. Going forward, defenders of our Constitution have a renewed duty to protect every single citizen’s First Amendment rights and guarantee that no person or organization’s religious freedom is in any way undermined by today’s controversial decision.”

Congressman Joe Pitts:

“Despite the votes of 5 unelected lawyers, marriage was between a man and a woman at the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, at the Founding of our country, and in every time and place until 2004. Just two short years ago, the same five justices insisted that marriage was a policy decision that properly belonged to the states. Today’s ruling will lead to grave infringements of religious freedom across the United States.  Every American should be free to affirm the truth about marriage without being punished by the government. In the wake of this decision, we must ensure that no governmental entity is ever permitted to discriminate against Americans because they affirm the truth about marriage. No one should be forced to choose between their faith and their livelihood.”

9 Responses

  1. Arse-

    I didn’t tell his brother it would cancel out Joe’s Iraq vote. I was glad Sestak finally got on board with DADT (but he was late to the game getting there). But, Sestak doubled down on Iraq with his second vote on funding without accountability six months later (despite being blasted and picketed by the peace voters he courted in 2006).

    You are missing the point and the difference. Obama has acknowledged evolving on the issue and coming to accept/endorse/support gay marriage. Sestak, on the other hand, is lying about what his position was in 2006, claiming he NEVER understood why the people he served with couldn’t go home and marry the people they loved, while he was in the Navy.

    Thus, he’s lying, as he believed marriage was one-man-one-woman when I asked him.

    If he admitted that he changed his position once he got elected and heard about the problems his gay constituents faced, I could accept that. But, to rewrite his history and claim prior support is an insult to the people who really did support gay marriage back then, as well as patronizing to the gay community.

  2. David Diano, get a life. Barack Obama didn’t support gay marriage in 2006 either. Is he pandering? I do congratulate you that all you need to do to change somebody’s mind on something is tell their brother. What a load of . . . As for Pitts and Kelly, at least they can read conservative talking points.

  3. I get giddy just thinking about it. I hope SCOTUS soon realizes they have no right to limit how many I may marry either!! The possibilities are endless. Onward!!

  4. What part of the Constitution is Mike Kelly talking about? Is he really that clueless?

  5. My sister and I can make a baby. My brother and I cannot. Don’t be bigoted against our love. There’s no reason for it. Micek would not tolerate your hate.

  6. So Diano tells Sestak’s brother that a change of position on DADT would alleviate Diano’a vitriol, Sestak in fact changes his position to appease Diano, and Diano trashes him all the more. you are a freezing ice hold Mr. Diano. Object lesson here is you never try to appease a political terrorist like Diano.


    When I first met Joe in Jan/Feb 2006 at the opening of his campaign office, I asked him point-blank: “Would you support a Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage?”

    His answer was: “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    But, now in light of the Supreme Court ruling, Joe is lying on his FB page and writes: “Today’s ruling affirms what I learned in my 31 years in the U.S. Navy, where I went to war alongside men and women who were gay. I could never fathom a justification for any of these warriors going home to the one he or she loves and not having the same equal right to marry that person.”

    This is clearly a lie based upon his stated position when he ran for congress and was out of the military and free to speak up.

    He further writes: “So when I got to Congress, I was proud to co-sponsor legislation to end DADT and prohibit the military from discriminating based on sexual orientation.”

    For one, he didn’t talk about ending DADT during the 2006 campaign. Also, he didn’t become a co-sponsor until June 2007, after I lambasted him in an editorial about his Iraq funding vote. His brother asked me what Joe could to improve my opinion of him. I brought up DADT and Joe got on board soon AFTER.

    Whether or not Sestak actually supports gay marriage or thinks it is an affront to God, we can never know. But, Joe did go the same kind of Catholic School that Scalia went to, and entered the military in the early 70’s where he certainly never heard a supportive word about homosexuality. Judge for yourself.

    But, it’s 100% true that Sestak is pandering to a gay audience whose marriage rights he did not support in 2006.

  • Reader Poll: Who Should the GOP Nominate for Governor?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen