Love Is Apparently Not All You Need

Peter Goldberger and Anna Durbin have been married for 30 years and have raised three children.

But on this Valentine's Day, when the Ardmore, Pa. couple's only concern should be celebrating three decades of unyielding devotion to each other, Peter and Anna will instead be worrying about whether the state of Pennsylvania considers their marriage to be legally valid.

In affirming the wishes of another couple to have their marriage annulled last September, York County Judge Maria Musti Cook delivered a sweepingly broad ruling that said marriages are invalid if presided over by a minister who does not regularly serve a church or preach in a physical house of worship.

As a result, Anna and Peter's marriage, officiated by an ordained Catholic priest who at the time was clerking for a United States District Court Judge, might well be in jeopardy.

Thousands of other Pennsylvania marriages might be in danger as well.

So today, in true Valentine's Day spirit, the ACLU filed three lawsuits in an effort to protect marriage in Pennsylvania. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of Goldberger and Durbin, as well as two other Pennsylvania couples, both of whose marriages were officiated by ministers of the Universal Life Church and who gained their ordained status over the internet.

The issue at hand, as ACLU of Pennsylvania staff attorney Mary Catherine Roper has put it in conversations with reporters today, is that the state has no business saying that one kind of minister is better than another.

"The state has no business invalidating marriages just because it doesn't like the kind of minister who officiated them," Roper said.

Cupid himself couldn't have said it any better.

Add a comment (2)
Read the Terms of Use

b-ley

Hello, I've read previous posts; "bear-
ing false witness", "Buck county..", and this one that are acually about religion, and read about the Chelsea girl in NY and other countless crimes of ignorance, and to me they all have everything to do with religion. The reason I say that is there is this belief that people that suffer turn to religion and children in particular have always and will always be the foundation of the religious movement, for the simple reason that they are so easily manipulated just like the poor and anyone else that seems to have less rights than the majority.

It is without a doubt that this is a christian nation, but yet the question seems to be coming up progressively more and more these days and there seems to be an invisible boundry of exploration, where no matter what the topic we are constantly(systematically) reminded to stay on topic, so that should tell the observer that most all hot button topics for the last 900 + years have commonalities in the construct of thier foundation; from slavery,racisim,alchemy,chemistry,child
abuse,rape,womens rights,occupation of other countries,education,science,med
icine,hospitals,misconceptions,and so much more all have thier foot-hold in religion or superstition, which if you break that down further it's really just phsycology, which is where we are today, we no longer draw and quarter people or burn them at the stake or brand them,no the state the state now uses the science of linguistics and phsycology and it seems as though they have been hiding behind masks for quite some time.

My question is don't christians have the means to represent them selves, they are some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet. I guess I don't understand how the Aclu can straddle the fence the way it seems to? But I suppose you're just against governments use of religious symbles of religious expression, I get that, I'm just wondering if you're just here to stir the fire or really trying to find solutions to some of our largest problems? It seems as though you are defending many fronts, do you ever wonder if they all have the same arraiter?

Hope that you don't take some of this personaly, I'm just trying to be as honest as possible without being rude.

John Marker, Sr.

Sign Up for Breaking News