Despite concerns to the contrary, Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes insists that all 176 same-sex marriage licenses he issued prior to marriage equality in Pennsylvania are valid.
“They’ve never, ever been declared invalid, never,” Hanes told PGN. “There is a case that simply tells me not to issue [same-sex] marriage licenses. There is no invalidation of the marriage licenses [I already issued]. These marriage licenses have never been invalidated, they’ve never been voided, they’ve never been vacated.”
Hanes acknowledged that the case, which remains pending in state Supreme Court, faults him for issuing same-sex marriage licenses in the summer of 2013.
That case was initiated by the state Department of Health, which contended that Hanes exceeded his authority.
But Hanes said the Whitewood decision, which established marriage equality in Pennsylvania, and the Obergefell decision, which established marriage equality in the nation, reinforce his position that the marriage licenses he issued are valid.
“If there’s any individual or entity that questions the validity of these marriages, have them call me or my first deputy, Joan Nagel, and we will explain to them why it is a valid marriage license,” Hanes said. He can be reached at 610-278-3400.
Hanes added: “The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Marriage equality is the law of the land. Marriage equality is not a created concept. It’s an inherent right. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the law prohibiting marriage equality in Pennsylvania is and was unconstitutional. So the marriage licenses that I issued are valid. These marriages are not in limbo. And anyone who believes otherwise needs to read the Supreme Court decision.”
Frank E. Echols 3d, a gay man who received one of Hanes’ same-sex marriage licenses, remains unconvinced.
“Mr. Hanes can pontificate all he wants,” Echols told PGN. “But all I know is my husband’s employer refused to recognize our marriage for purposes of health benefits.”
Echols, 45, and Robert W. Robinson, 57, received a marriage license from Hanes in August 2013.
“I have to pay about $6,000 annually in health benefits because Bob’s employer refused to recognize our marriage license,” Echols said. “And my tax accountant refused to recognize it for the purpose of filing a joint tax return.”
Echols said the date on their marriage license appears to be problematic.
“They won’t recognize us as a married couple because the date on our marriage license is Aug. 8, 2013 — prior to the state legalizing same-sex marriages,” Echols explained. “We would like Montgomery County to change the date on our license to May 20, 2014, which is the date Pennsylvania legalized same-sex marriage.”
In September 2014, a judge allowed about 25 same-sex couples who received marriage licenses from Hanes to change the issuance date to May 20, 2014. But the couples had to engage in extensive litigation prior to doing so.
“I wish I knew about that litigation,” Echols continued. “Bob and I definitely would have added our names as plaintiffs. I would have jumped on it, if I knew that’s what everybody had to do to get their licenses validated.”
Because MontCo officials maintain the validity of the couple’s marriage license, they’ve denied Echols’ request to simply void it, which would allow the couple to get a new marriage license, Echols added.
He also expressed concern about how Robinson’s estate would be distributed, should he pass away before a court determines the validity of their marriage.
“If Bob were to pass away, even with all the legal paperwork we have filed to try to prevent it, his family could say that I have no legal right to anything that is his, and possibly take his half of everything we have because we are not legally married. The most upsetting part is feeling like no one is helping to do anything about it.”
Echols said he realizes Hanes tried to help the cause of LGBT rights when issuing same-sex marriage licenses in 2013.
“I’m very grateful to Mr. Hanes for what he tried to do for the community,” Echols said. “But where is he now to clean up this mess? He might say he didn’t leave a mess. But that hasn’t been my experience. No one seems to be doing any follow-up to ensure these marriages are legal.”
Echols hopes to network with other couples in a similar situation.
“I would like to reach out to the other couples who are in the same boat as I am, and see if we can form a group to try and do something about having our marriage licenses changed, voided or validated. There may be someone in my situation with advice on what to do, or we may collectively come up with some ideas.”
Echols said he’s willing to spearhead the effort, and urged interested couples to contact him at [email protected].
Attorney Michael P. Clarke represents Hanes in the pending state Supreme Court matter.
“We continue to speak with the state Department of Health regarding resolving this issue,” Clarke said in an Oct. 5 email. “Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a final resolution. I will notify you once we do.”