Wedding Venues Cannot Deny Same-Sex Couples In Pennsylvania

Same-sex marriage has been recognised in Pennsylvania since 20 May 2014, when a federal district court judge ruled that the state's 1996 statutory ban on recognising same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite this, wedding vendors have been known to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples, citing religious objections as an excuse. So, can wedding venues deny same-sex couples in Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

The Provisions of DOMA

One of the main provisions of DOMA was that it allowed states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages conducted in other states. This meant that Pennsylvania was not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions that allowed them, such as Massachusetts and California.

DOMA also had significant implications for the rights and benefits afforded to same-sex couples. It denied them access to over 1,000 federal protections and privileges, including spousal employment benefits, inheritance rights, joint tax filings, and the ability to cohabit in college or military housing.

Furthermore, DOMA had a direct impact on families with children. Under the law, a non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship could not have a legal relationship with their partner's biological child. Same-sex couples were also restricted in their ability to adopt children and were limited in their rights during divorce proceedings, including custody, visitation, and child support.

The Impact of DOMA in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania was one of the states that enacted a specific ban on same-sex marriage following the passage of DOMA. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state in 2009 and 2013 were unsuccessful due to opposition from conservative members of the General Assembly. It was only in 2014 that a federal district court judge ruled that Pennsylvania's ban on recognizing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, marking a significant shift in the state's stance on the issue.

The Repeal of DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act was subject to numerous legal challenges and repeal efforts over the years. In 2013, the United States v. Windsor case led the Supreme Court to declare Section 3 of DOMA, which dealt with federal recognition of same-sex marriages, unconstitutional. This marked a pivotal moment in the fight for marriage equality.

Finally, in 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling by the Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. This decision rendered Section 2 of DOMA, which allowed states to deny recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, unenforceable. The Respect for Marriage Act, passed in 2022, officially repealed DOMA, solidifying the legal recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Federal District Court's ruling on DOMA

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and treated legally married same-sex couples as single rather than married. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor marked a significant step forward for marital rights and same-sex couples across the country.

The case centred around Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple from New York. After Spyer's death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,053 in federal estate taxes as the federal government did not recognize their marriage. She sought a refund and sued the federal government, arguing that DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional and deprived her of her rights. The Department of Justice agreed and declined to defend the constitutionality of this section.

The District Judge, Barbara S. Jones, ruled in Windsor's favour, stating that DOMA Section 3 was indeed unconstitutional as it violated the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in a 5-4 decision, found that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, violating the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that the Constitution prevented the federal government from treating state-sanctioned heterosexual marriages differently from state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. He highlighted the law's discriminatory nature, stating that it ""writes inequality into the entire United States Code" and "tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition." This ruling sent a powerful message of equality and dignity for same-sex couples and their families.

While the Supreme Court's decision was a landmark victory, it is important to note that it did not address Section 2 of DOMA, which allows states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. This means that while the federal government must now recognize same-sex marriages, individual states are not legally required to do so. The fight for full marriage equality across the United States continued even after this ruling.

The state's anti-discrimination laws

Pennsylvania's anti-discrimination laws have been through a series of changes over the years, with same-sex marriage being recognised and banned multiple times.

In 1996, Pennsylvania's statutory ban on recognising same-sex marriage was introduced, which was later deemed unconstitutional in 2014. This ban was challenged in court multiple times before it was finally struck down. In 2009 and 2013, efforts to legalise same-sex marriage in the state were unsuccessful due to opposition from conservative members of the General Assembly.

In 2014, a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, citing that it discriminated against lesbians and gay men. This ruling, known as Whitewood v. Wolf, was a result of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and other organisations. The judge's decision directed the state to allow same-sex couples to marry and recognise valid out-of-state marriages. As a result, same-sex couples in Pennsylvania gained the same benefits as heterosexual couples in various areas, including Social Security, employer-provided benefits, inheritance taxes, and hospital decision-making rights.

Despite this progress, there have been instances where wedding vendors in Pennsylvania and across the country have refused to accommodate same-sex couples, citing religious objections. In some cases, courts have ruled in favour of these vendors based on their First Amendment rights, prioritising them over state anti-discrimination laws.

However, it's important to note that Pennsylvania's anti-discrimination laws are still in place, and denying service based on sexual orientation is considered discrimination. If an individual faces discrimination based on their sexual orientation, they are encouraged to seek legal assistance from a lawyer specialising in discrimination cases.

Religious objections

Same-sex marriage has been recognised in Pennsylvania since 20 May 2014, when a federal district court judge ruled that the state's 1996 statutory ban on recognising same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite this, some wedding vendors have refused to accommodate same-sex couples, citing religious objections as an excuse.

Although many states have anti-discrimination laws in place, some federal courts have approved the decision to refuse service based on religious beliefs. For example, a baker in Colorado refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The Court did not rule that business owners have the right to refuse service to same-sex couples; however, they did rule in favour of the baker based on his First Amendment rights, deciding that these rights trump state anti-discrimination laws.

In another example, an interracial couple was denied service at a wedding venue in Mississippi, with the owner claiming that providing service would go against their Christian beliefs.

In 2016, the State of Mississippi passed the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" or "Religious Liberty Accommodations Act", which protects persons, religious organisations, and private associations that withhold services in accordance with "deeply held religious beliefs or moral convictions".

While same-sex marriage is now legal in Pennsylvania, some individuals and businesses continue to discriminate against same-sex couples based on religious objections.

The Constitutional grounds of Equal Protection and Due Process

On May 20, 2014, US District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional on the grounds of Equal Protection and Due Process. This ruling allowed same-sex couples to marry and gave recognition to all same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution ensures that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. In his opinion, Judge Jones wrote:

> [T]hat same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of 'separate but equal.'

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the law of the land. The right to marry has been recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause.

The ruling by Judge Jones had an immediate effect, and same-sex couples in Pennsylvania began applying for marriage licenses. The ruling also allowed same-sex couples who had previously been married in other states to have their marriages recognized in Pennsylvania.

Despite the nationwide ruling, some vendors continue to discriminate against same-sex couples, citing religious objections. However, same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states, and same-sex couples in Pennsylvania have the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to Social Security benefits, employer-provided health insurance, and inheritance without paying inheritance tax.

Frequently asked questions