Pennsylvania Threatened With Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Timothy Kincaid

March 19th, 2008

The Pittsburg Post-Gazette is reporting that an anti-gay bill to amend the state’s constitution to permanently exclude same-sex couples from marriage has passed the Judiciary Committee of the Senate.

Over the protests of Sens. Jay Costa Jr., D-Forest Hills, and Jane Earll, R-Erie, the committee voted 10-4 to approve Senate Bill 1250 and send it to the Appropriations Committee, its next stop before it hits the Senate floor.

This proposed amendment is arrogant and punitive in that it not only reserves the privileges of marriage to heterosexuals but it also prohibits this legislature or future legislatures from providing civil unions or any other functionally equivalent consideration:

No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognizeds as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.

Not content to “protect marriage”, these anti-gays also want to ensure that gay couples cannot get equivalent workplace benefits, establish next-of-kin, visit their sick or make end of life decisions for their partner of decades, or many of the other accommodations that can be established by “functional equivalents”. This isn’t good government. It isn’t good religion. It’s bigotry and cruelty dressed up as piety.

To enshrine discrimination into the state’s constitution, this bill must do the following

The gay marriage ban has a long way to go. The bill must be approved not only by the current General Assembly, but also by the 2009-10 Legislature, whose members will be elected in November. If both sessions of the Legislature approve it, the amendment would go to a statewide referendum in November 2009.

Currently, the Senate has a Republican majority of 29 to 21.

In the Judiciary, only two Democrats and two Republicans voted against the bill. And in addition to the three Democrats who voted for the anti-gay bill in Judiciary, two others are listed as sponsors. In total 25 of the 50 Senators have either voted for or endorsed this amendment, fairly ensuring its passage should it reach the floor of the Senate.

The House has a narrow Democratic majority of 102 to 101. But as we have often seen, a Democratic majority in one house is not an assurance that anti-gay bigotry will be thwarted.

Now is the time for Pennsylvania gays to contact their legislators, especially those in the House of Representatives. We need every Democrat to hold fast against institutionalized discrimination. We need every fair-minded Republican to recognize that even if they don’t favor marriage equality, this amendment is over-kill. The “functional equivalent” clause proves that this is discrimination for the point of discrimination, not a measure to “protect” marriage.

werdna

March 19th, 2008

That would be a “narrow DemocratIC majority” in the House.

Democrat is a noun–a person can be a democrat or a Democrat. Democratic is an adjective–you use it to modify a noun like majority or party.

Just saying it so Zeke doesn’t have to… At this point it’s kind of an endearing tic.

Timothy Kincaid

March 19th, 2008

I started to argue because I think Democrat in this usage is a noun (as in a majority of Democrats)… but now I’m not sure. “Democratic majority” may be correct, but it sounds confusing, like it was a majority that was democratically selected rather than a majority of Democrats.

But I’ll change it to “Democratic” for now. And if some English teacher is reading, tell me if it should be changed back to “a Democrat majority”.

Jason D

March 19th, 2008

democratISH?

democrat-oriented?

werdna

March 20th, 2008

Using a capital “D” makes it clear that you are referring to the Democratic Party. Using a lower-case “d” would imply a majority that is democratically elected or democratically inclined.

Regardless, context makes it obvious what you mean. In the preceding paragraphs you refer to the Republican majority in the Senate, so it’s clear that you are referring to the Democratic Party when you discuss the “narrow Democratic majority” in the House.

Why wait for an English teacher to weigh in? There are plenty of perfectly sound resources on the web that explain the proper use of adjectives and nouns. Any dictionary should help you understand that democrat is a noun and democratic is an adjective.

There are, of course, some instances where it is accepted for a noun to modify another noun (phone call, toothpaste, Iraq war, etc.). In this case, however, the choice to use “Democrat” rather than “Democratic” is, as has been discussed at great length in previous posts, seen by many as provocative and partisan. The adjectival form is the neutral and preferred form.

Jim Burroway

March 20th, 2008

Hey, have you heard? I read somewhere that the Pennsylvania legislature is poised to pass an overly broad anti-marriage constitutional amendment.

Charlotte

March 20th, 2008

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Zeke

March 22nd, 2008

I came to leave a comment to say how much I appreciated the well written and informative commentary.

I didn’t even notice the “ic-less” thing when I read it. Maybe it was fixed before I got here.

I have to say, in its current form, this commentary was quite impressive in its fairness and ability to inform without preach.

Thanks Mr. Kincaid.

Zeke

March 22nd, 2008

Oh, I just caught what werdna was pointing out and although I agree with his/her explanation Mr. Kincaid’s original post wouldn’t have struck me as odd or out of line.

To be honest I don’t think I would have even caught that one or thought it was out of line.

It’s only “Democrat Party” that rubs me wrong because of the intentional use of it as a taunt by conservative media pundits and radio talk show hosts.

Again, great post!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.