PA Anti-Gay Ban Will Cost Jobs

April 12, 2008

Pittsburgh, PA—Supporters and opponents of a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples filled Pittsburgh's Allegheny County Courthouse for a public hearing.

The amendment also would ban civil unions and could be used, say opponents, to cancel domestic partner benefits.

Lawmakers are traveling the state eliciting public reaction to the amendment, and they got an earful on Thursday.

Deborah Hamilton, the head of Pennsylvania for Marriage, a coalition of conservative groups, said the measure was needed to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Hamilton read from a statement by the far right Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation.

[The ban on gay marriage] advances a single purpose — the preservation of Pennsylvania's marriage policy as understood throughout the existence of the Commonwealth — by reaffirming the legal definition of marriage, the statement said.

Pittsburgh's Catholic bishop also declared his support, calling marriage one of humanity's oldest institutions forming "the very backbone of society."

That marriage must be considered truly sacred seems to elude us, Bishop David Zubik told lawmakers. We have reached the point of a laissez faire view of marriage, a concerted effort to expand its definition so vaguely that marriage essentially becomes meaningless.

LGBT rights groups and their allies called the amendment unnecessary since the state already has a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Stacey Sobel, executive director of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, called the proposal damaging to all Pennsylvanians.

Not only would it prevent same-sex couples from marrying, it would also potentially prohibit civil unions, domestic partner benefits and more. And that would be for any unmarried couple in the state, Sobel told the committee.

It will not prevent one couple from getting divorced. It will not feed, clothe or educate a family's child.

Pittsburgh City Council President Douglas Shields warned that the amendment, if approved by voters, would void the city's domestic partner law that was passed a dozen years ago. The law, Shields told the committee, helped attract and retain the best employees.

We adopted our local anti-discrimination ordinance because we value all families, he testified.

Also opposing the amendment were state Sen. Jim Ferlo (D) and state Rep. Dan Frankel (D) and the American Civil Liberties Union.

A recent poll found that although most Pennsylvanians oppose same-sex marriage there was widespread support civil unions.

The poll, conducted by Susquehanna Polling and Research, found 65 percent of those questioned support civil unions while only 27 percent were opposed.

Last month the proposed amendment was approved on a 10-4 vote. It still needs approval in the full Senate and in the House. It would then need to be approved again by both houses in the next session of the legislature before being put to voters.

The earliest it could be put on the ballot would be 2009.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.stephenhyland.com/blawg/mt/mt-tb.cgi/169