Emotional Hearing On Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Amendment

Emotional Hearing On Pennsylvania Gay Marriage Amendmentby The Associated Press
March 28, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) A legislative panel heard arguments Tuesday over a measure intended to strengthen an existing ban on same-sex marriages, two weeks after it narrowly endorsed the measure.
The proposed amendment to the state constitution would prohibit state, local and county governments from legally recognizing the unions of unmarried same-sex or heterosexual couples. The amendment would also define "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.
The House State Government Committee approved it March 14 in a 15-13 vote, sending it to the House of Representatives. The committee held a public hearing on the measure Tuesday at the behest of one of its members.
The House is expected to take up the bill April 4, a vote that would be the first step in a complex amendment process, said Steve Miskin, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Sam Smith. A similar bill is awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Nineteen states have adopted constitutional definitions of marriage.
Supporters of an amendment in Pennsylvania consider it a safeguard against possible lawsuits that might seek to overturn the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bans legal recognition of same-sex unions. Forty-one states have laws similar to that law.
"It is inevitable that our laws will be challenged in the future," said Maura Quinlan, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the lobbying group for the state's Catholic churches. "We would be foolhardy to wait for an adverse decision."
In January, a Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old Maryland state law against gay marriage, declaring it violates that state's constitutional guarantee of equal rights. The judge immediately stayed the order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court.
"The courts have engaged in policymaking, overruling the explicit statutes enacted by duly elected state legislatures, and ignoring the overwhelming sentiment of the public," said Michael Geer, president of the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute.
Advocates for gays and lesbians, domestic-violence victims, and children argued that the amendment would prevent same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples from adopting or seeking protection-from-abuse orders. They also said it would discourage employers from offering domestic-partner benefits.
"You're telling some citizens of our commonwealth that they are not equals, that they are not going to be able to have the same rights, the same responsibilities or the same benefits as other people and that you don't care," said Stacy Sobel, executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia.
Frank Cervone of Philadelphia's Support Center for Child Advocates told the committee adoptions by same-sex couple are becoming increasingly common.
"It's not a social experiment. It's a social reality," he said.
Constitutional amendments must pass the General Assembly in each of two successive two-year sessions, then win voter approval in a statewide referendum; the earliest that could happen is 2007.
The committee passed the bill two weeks ago after a motion to delay a vote until after a public hearing failed. Rep. Paul Clymer, the committee's chairman, held the hearing at the request of the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Babette Josephs, who opposes the bill.
Josephs, D-Philadelphia, said she would like to have additional hearings on the proposal.
"The voters should not be kept in ignorance," she said.
©365Gay.com 2006

-------------
Okay, for those of you who don't know, recently, within the last few weeks, the Penn state voted on a Marriage Law restricting legal unions to "a man and a woman" (rolls eyes) and it won, 15-13. Geez, that's like a football score! The homophobics won by kicking two measly field goals in Overtime. And can't you hear all of 'em say, "Well, ha, ha, God was on our side!" No, God was not on your side, MONEY and the insane rich voters were--the top 1%! This "law" will be overturned someday--and hopefully someday soon!