This Guy Is Single-Handedly Destroying Pennsylvania’s Gay-Marriage Ban

D. Bruce Hanes, the Montgomery County clerk, knows the state forbids issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. He’s doing it anyway.

<a href="http://wordpress.philau.edu/today/2013/08/12/d-bruce-hanes-elected-official-and-philau-adjunct-faculty-member-takes-a-stand-on-same-sex-marriage/">Philadelphia University

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Update: CNN reports that a Pennsylvania judge ruled Thursday that Hanes must “cease and desist from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex applicants [and] from accepting the marriage certificates of same-sex couples.” Hanes is reportedly complying with the order but considering an appeal.

Gay marriages are illegal in Pennsylvania. But if you go to D. Bruce Hanes, you can get one anyway.

Hanes is an Army veteran and Democratic county clerk in Montgomery County, outside Philadelphia. In July, he started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Pennsylvanians Loreen Bloodgood and Alicia Terrizzi, 17-year partners who are the mothers of two sons, were first in line.

“Based on the recent Supreme Court decisions over the Defense of Marriage Act, I felt that Pennsylvania’s Marriage Act was indeed unconstitutional,” Hanes tells Mother Jones. “So in this office, we no longer ask people their gender.” Since enacting the policy, Hanes’ office has issued more than 160 licenses to same-sex couples. “Couples come from all over to Montgomery County to get the licenses,” Hanes says.

Now a Pennsylvania state court has to decide whether what Hanes did was legal—and what to do about the licenses he already issued. Republican Gov. Tom Corbett’s Department of Health has sued Hanes for failing to enforce Pennsylvania law, arguing that the marriage licenses are invalid. A hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday. The outcome of the suit will determine whether a single local official can cite federal precedent to decree a state’s same-sex-marriage law unconstitutional.

It’s not so far-fetched an idea, explains Karl Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Last week, Manheim notes, the IRS began to let same-sex couples file joint tax returns, regardless of whether they live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. “We’re soon going to have a proliferation of federal laws that treat [gay] folks as married,” Manheim says. “The next battleground is whether states like Pennsylvania are going to be able to ignore this.”

Corbett argues that allowing Hanes to continue issuing same-sex marriage licenses could set a dangerous legal precedent. “Regardless of where you might stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, the question being decided with this particular case is does any local official, anywhere, have the ability pick and choose statutes they want to follow?” says Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the governor. “Individuals can’t single-handedly be the interpreters of constitutional issues. That’s problematic.” 

In a legal brief, the state’s lawyers put the issue more bluntly: “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’?” Marriage equality advocates found this comparison particularly offensive: “We’re talking about couples who have been together for decades, who have built families together, who have given back to communities across Pennsylvania. We’re not talking about children,” wrote Ted S. Martin, executive director for Equality Pennsylvania, in a statement. Hagen-Frederiksen says that Corbett has since acknowledged that comparing consenting gay and lesbian adults to 12-year-olds was inappropriate. But the controversy over the analogy, he argues, has distracted from a key legal point: “Marriages are registered in a uniform way. Right now we have 66 issuing one way and one county going another way. That’s not uniform.”

This isn’t the first time a local clerk has flouted state law barring marriage of same-sex couples. Long before California passed its gay-marriage ban, Proposition 8, officials issued thousands of same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of state law. The California Supreme Court eventually put a stop to that practice, voiding the licenses. That could happen in Pennsylvania, too. But Hanes, who says he fully expected Corbett’s Health Department to sue him, isn’t at risk—as an elected official, he would have be impeached to be removed from office. Right now, that doesn’t seem likely, especially since he’s been getting so many thank-you notes. “I was getting 5-10 a day for a couple weeks,” he says.

Even if the Pennsylvania court follows California’s lead and deems Hanes’ same-sex marriage licenses invalid, same-sex couples could still come away with a win, explains Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a group that advocates for LGBT equality. If a same-sex couple wants to sue over a marriage license, they need to have what lawyers call standing—the ability to prove they were harmed. “There are circumstances where actions [like Hanes’] create that standing,” Warbelow says.

Manheim, the law professor, thinks it’s possible that federal agencies will recognize Hanes’ same-sex marriages even if the Pennsylvania court rules against him. “The governor of Pennsylvania is fighting a losing battle,” Manheim says. “The states have lost. Hanes may incur some legal expenses, but he will eventually prevail.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate