Time is running out for Gov Tom Corbett to stand up for PA law and republican party values

RNC Resolution for Marriage and Children 2013

Whereas, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; and it is based on the relationship that only a man and a woman can form; and

Whereas, support for marriage has been repeatedly affirmed nationally in the 2012 Republican National Platform, through the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (signed into law by President Bill Clinton), and passed by the voters of 41 States including California via Proposition 8 in 2008; and

Whereas, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; and

Whereas, the future of our country is children; it has been proven repeatedly that the most secure and nurturing environment in which to raise healthy well adjusted children is in a home where both mother and father are bound together in a loving marriage; and

Whereas, the U. S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of laws adopted to protect marriage from the unfounded accusation that support for marriage is based only on irrational prejudice against homosexuals; therefore be it

Resolved, the Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America; and be it further

Resolved, the Republican National Committee implores the U. S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California‟s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

As adopted by the Republican National Committee on April 12, 2013.

Wisconsin judge puts same-sex marriages on hold

Published: Friday, Jun. 13, 2014 – 6:42 am
Last Modified: Saturday, Jun. 14, 2014 – 1:49 pm

A federal judge on Friday put same-sex marriages in Wisconsin on hold, a week after she struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional, a move that allowed more than 500 couples to wed over the last eight days.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling Friday means that gay marriages will end while the appeal from Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is pending. Couples who were in the middle of the five-day waiting period to get a license, which most counties waived, are caught in limbo.

Van Hollen requested Crabb put her ruling on hold, arguing that allowing the marriages while the underlying case was pending created confusion about the legality of those marriages.

In her order, Crabb expressed (continue reading)


State Representatives Support Clerk’s Appeal for Marriage

Twenty Republican House members signed a letter addressed to Schuylkill County Register of Wills Theresa Santai-Gaffney supporting her decision to legally intervene against the May 20th decision by U.S. Middle District Court Judge John Jones dismantling the state Defense of Marriage Act.

Last Friday afternoon, Theresa Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphans’ Court of Schuylkill County, filed paperwork to intervene in the case that overturned Pennsylvania’s marriage law. Please  (continue reading)

Metcalfe to Introduce Resolution Calling on Governor to Stand Up for States’ Rights

Metcalfe to Introduce Resolution Calling on Governor to Stand Up for States’ Rights

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania House State Government Committee Majority Chairman, Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), will soon introduce a House resolution officially calling on the Corbett administration to defend Pennsylvania’s state sovereignty by appealing the Whitewood v. Wolf court decision that invalidated Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act.

“This federal court’s blatant and tyrannical usurpation of power is a direct assault on the sovereignty of every current and future law adopted by this Commonwealth,” said Metcalfe. “The governor’s announcement that he does not intend to appeal this judicial activist decision establishes a harmful precedent against the sovereign powers reserved to the states, or we the people, by America’s founders through the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

However, according to Metcalfe, who is also the prime sponsor of a proposed Constitutional amendment (House Bill 1349) that would leave the decision to define marriage completely up to Pennsylvania voters, time is of the essence for the state House to adopt House Resolution 891. There are now fewer than 30 days from the May 20 federal court decision for the governor to reverse his decision and file a notice of appeal.

An excerpt from the resolution reads: “Therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives urge the executive branch participants in the Whitewood case to appeal the decision in order to preserve the right of the citizens of this Commonwealth to exercise their constitutional and historical prerogative to define marriage.”

“Ultimately, any changes to Pennsylvania’s definition of marriage should come as a result of the legislative process (continue reading)



Take action to protect Pennsylvania’s marriage law


Resolution Introduced Urging Governor Corbett to Appeal Jones’ Decision


Wednesday afternoon Representative Daryl Metcalfe sent out a Co-sponsorship Memoranda asking for co-sponsors to a resolution “Urging Governor Corbett to Defend State’s Rights.”

The memo outlines Judge Jones’ usurpation of power in his decision to declare our Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and Governor Corbett’s decision not to appeal Jones’ decision as “a harmful precedent.” It also notes that last June’s US Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor affirms that the “federal government may not interfere with a state’s definition or regulation of marriage.”

Action Steps

Representative Metcalfe needs co-sponsors added to this resolution. Contact your State Representative and ask him or her to co-sponsor Representative Metcalfe’s “Resolution Urging Governor Corbett to Defend states’ Rights.”

1.) In this instance, a personal phone call into the district office nearest you or email would be best. Click here for a list of all the State Reps to find out their district phone numbers. If you don’t know who your legislator is, click on “Who’s my Legislator?” in the right sidebar of this page.

2.) Go to our ACTION CENTER to send an email. The message is pre-written, but you may change the subject line and wording of the message in order to personalize it.


Schuylkill County Clerk Files Motion to Intervene in Marriage Lawsuit


Schuylkill County Clerk Files Motion to Intervene in Marriage Lawsuit


This afternoon, Jim Smith and David Crossett, attorneys with the Smith Law Group, LLC, located in Fleetwood, Berks County, Pennsylvania, and Jeff Conrad, attorney with Clymer, Musser & Conrad, P.C., located in Lancaster County, on behalf of Theresa Santai Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphan’s Court of Schuylkill County, filed a Motion to Intervene in Whitewood v. Wolf, the case in which a single federal District Judge declared unconstitutional for all Pennsylvanians, the Commonwealth’s longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Theresa Santai Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphan’s Court, is seeking intervention in the case so that the ruling can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


Governor Corbett, who had been defending the law, declined to appeal the ruling. “An appeal is necessary so that the judicial process is not abandoned,” stated Ms. Gaffney. “The people of Pennsylvania deserve to hear from the Court of Appeals on this important issue because a single judge should not be able to nullify the will of the majority without an appeal.”


Marriage between one man and one woman has always been the law in Pennsylvania. “I respect the law of our Commonwealth and the will of the people reflected in the law,” said Ms. Gaffney. “I believe that the voice of those who think that our law is constitutional and best serves all citizens of the Commonwealth should be heard.”


“Due to the uncertainty of the state of the law, I will continue issuing marriage licenses to all couples,” said Ms. Gaffney.


One of the reasons that she is seeking to intervene in this case is to obtain clarity about her official duties.


The Motion to Intervene asks the Court for the ability to join the lawsuit for purposes of appeal.