There may not be a trial to decide whether the state's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional. The plaintiffs argued the state isn't disputing their facts and hasn't identified an expert witness, so a judge can toss the ban out without a trial.
Vic Walczak, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, joined us to discuss the issue.
There isn’t a dispute against the facts, so a trial isn’t necessary, and the judge can reach a verdict in a more timely manner, according to Walczak.
“We want to present the stories of these people to show that they are just like any other couple or family in the commonwealth that can get married,” he said.
The commonwealth is arguing that the state only needs some rational basis to justify treating same-sex couples differently, which doesn’t always mean that the evidence will be the best. The ACLU of Pennsylvania wants to present strong justification that same-sex couples should not be treated differently.