Panel to vote on
same-sex marriage
prohibition
By Tom Barnes, from
the Web, March 18, 2008
HARRISBURG -- The Senate
Judiciary Committee held round one yesterday on a controversial amendment to the
state constitution intended to stop men from marrying other men and women from
marrying other women in the Keystone State.
The judiciary panel is due to hold round two today, when it's expected to vote
on whether to send the so-called Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Act to the
full Senate for action.
The measure, introduced by several conservative Republican senators, led by
freshman Michael Brubaker of Lancaster, is intended to bolster a 1996 state law,
the Defense of Marriage Act, which already outlaws marriage between people of
the same sex.
Mr. Brubaker said merely having a law on the books isn't enough, and he wants to
amend the state constitution. Supporters say a future General Assembly
could repeal the 1996 act, or a judge could throw it out should a gay couple
bring a legal challenge to it.
Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Janice
Hollis, senior pastor of Progressive Believers Ministries in Philadelphia,
supported the proposed constitutional amendment.
"There cannot be a healthy community without healthy families,'' said Ms.
Hollis. "The church has a responsibility to be proactively involved in
issues dealing with the family and society.''
Ms. Gallagher said about two-thirds of Pennsylvanians support traditional
marriage. "They are not hate-filled bigots,'' she said. The vast
majority of the standing room-only crowd of 125 people applauded her.
Supporters said Pennsylvania wouldn't be breaking new ground, since 27 other
states have already changed their constitutions to define marriage as only
between one man and one woman.
The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference also supported the amendment, but
Pennsylvania NOW, the American Civil Liberties Union, several law professors and
the Rev. Julian Hall of United Church of Christ in Hanover opposed it.
"The General Assembly has far more pressing business ... than initiating the
costly and time-consuming process of amending the Pennsylvania Constitution,''
said University of Pittsburgh Law School professor Anthony Infanti.
Also opposed was Stacey Sobel of Equality Advocates of Pennsylvania. She
said it would hurt nontraditional families, where two women or two men are
raising a child. "It wouldn't protect'' such families, she said.
"This amendment could deprive these families of necessary legal protections.''
Sen. Jane Earll, R-Erie, broke with her Republican colleagues and opposed the
constitutional amendment. She called it "a dangerous precedent'' that was
based on fears of "a ghost in the corner.''
She said defining marriage as one man and one woman is both already in law and
in the state's domestic relations code, which she said is enough.
Even if the bill is approved by the Legislature this year, it would have to be
approved again in 2009 and then put on a statewide referendum in November 2009
before the constitution would be changed.
Bureau Chief Tom Barnes can be reached at
tbarnes@post-gazette.com or
717-787-4254.
First published on March 18, 2008 at 12:00 am
|
