I'm going to Harrisburg!

[keltic63]

Pennsylvania is trying to add a marriage ban to the constitution. A few groups have joined together and are rallying at the state capitol on Tuesday march 14th: http://www.center4civilrights.org/
My pastor and I have some business in Harrisburg to attend to with our denomination, and so we're going that morning, then attending the Rally! She has concerns about such an amendment as a pastor because she has heard stories of pastors being prosecuted for performing religious commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Road Trip!

[Vanessa White]

Thanks, Keltic! I just visited the website and sent an email. I am not sure why they feel the need to amend the constitution- isn't there already a defense of marriage law/ something like that on the books? My partner and I did not get married in Mass. because we thought there was a law on the books in PA that would prohibit recognizing the marriage even if challenged. Good luck on your mission, I can't make it, but wish you luck. vanessa

[keltic63]

Thanks, Keltic! I just visited the website and sent an email. I am not sure why they feel the need to amend the constitution- isn't there already a defense of marriage law/ something like that on the books? My partner and I did not get married in Mass. because we thought there was a law on the books in PA that would prohibit recognizing the marriage even if challenged. Good luck on your mission, I can't make it, but wish you luck. vanessa

yes, vanessa, there is a law against it already, so it appears that this is just discrimination for discrimination's sake, rubbing salt in the wounds etc. From the info I can find, the laws are related to the Defense of Marriage Act which began in 1995, PA Adopted its DoMA in 1996. So it's already illegal in PA, why do this?

[Vanessa White]

There is that old fear again, raising its ugly head. Fear that we will be so influential and powerful that we may be able to win a case against a law that is already on the books, so what they better do is amend a constitution that was created two hundred and something years ago? Talk about your overachievers.......

Are they so afraid that we just might win this one somehow?

Do you know how clearly I can envision a mass wedding of couples in the center of Harrisburg if the DoMA were to somehow be found to be unconstitutional?

Do we really appear to be that frightening? Am I secretly a monster that I have yet to discover?

I feel like being so cynical about this. I have read threads all day that make it discouraging to be who I am.

[keltic63]

Vanessa:
As if LGBT people could screw up marriage worse than the hetero's? they're afraid we'll be better at it!

[Vanessa White]

You definitely could not have said it any better. I wonder if our divorce rate would be as high as the hetero rate, isn't that running at about one in two these days? I think we stand a better chance of surviving, based on all we have had to go through just to be who we really are, and how hard we have had to fight for all of it.

[keltic63]

I've heard that MA, the only state allowing same-sex marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Southern States, the Bible Belt, have the highest divorce rates. at least according to an anti-Santorum website, something like 'santorumexposed.com'

[Vanessa White]

That is encouraging and hopeful. Good luck in the endeavor. Let us hope that right will prevail. Peace to you, Keltic.

[Zerbie]

Thank you for standing up and speaking out against this thing!!

To address why these amendments appear in states that already prohibit same-sex marriage:

1. They say "we run the very real risk of activist judges redefining marriage." There is a contingent of folk that really do believe the civilization will deteriorate in some way if gays can marry. Most folk who support these amendments really believe they are protecting the interests of children who require both a mother and a father, and that by recognizing gay relationships, gay adults and their "selfish desires" are being elevated above the interests of children. (intentionally depriving a child of a father or a mother)

2. These amendments are a motivator that gets the far-right to the polls for an otherwise less exciting election (b/c it is not a presidential election year). They want to oust democratic, liberal, or moderate incumbents who are seen as too gay-friendly, too pro-choice, too liberal, or whatever. . .so this is a way to bring out folks who will vote for the far right types like Santorum. Cuz the folks that would approve of Santorum don't like gays, generally. So to keep Santorum IN, put a "gay marriage" initiative on the ballot. Ding ding ding! Pay dirt! They are USING us as a scapegoat to further an unrelated agenda.

Hey - I'd like to know the exact language of the PA amendment - diya have it?

[keltic63]

zerbie: here ya go: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/HB2381P3397.HTM

[Zerbie]

Does it then go the electorate if it passes the state legislature?

Anyway, the language to the PA amendment is almost IDENTICAL to that we are fighting here. See my old thread called something like "How is this? Please critique" to read some points about why the second clause in there is the MOST harmful, and also gives you the most talking points to help defeat its popularity.

Thanks for standing up for what is right - please rally every friend and supporter you have who is willing to contact their representative to dissent.

[Zerbie]

Got an address for ya to check out. When discussing this proposal with others, there is a whole set of issues the talking points on center4civilrights does not address: specifically, the impact of the second clause of the proposed amendment which denies any legal recognition to unmarried people that is significantly similar to marriage. Some time down the road, there will be great debate as to what defines substantially similar to marriage, and that clause can therefore lead to a whole serious of un-intended consequences for ANY people living together unmarried REGARDLESS of sexual orientation.

The amendment proposed in AZ is almost identical in words. Find our talking points at this website: aztogether.org, and click on the section How Does This Affect Me? For a whole lotta talking points.

[Jennifer5]

It's great that you get to do that... I wish I was older and was free to do things like that when they came up... good luck!

"I wonder if our divorce rate would be as high as the hetero rate, isn't that running at about one in two these days? " I know a couple people who have had like 4 out of 4 marriages fail and others who are still on #3...... my mom is one of them 2 out of 2 failed... mental illness...twice.... not the best at finding a good guy.....

Anyway GOOD LUCK hope you have fun!

[Zerbie]

Jennifer, I know *exactly* how you feel!!! I was about 8 when the media FIRST discovered AIDS in the mid 80s and all that homophobic and AIDS panic went wild - - - I was desperate to be older so that I could help stop the panic and urge lawmakers to donate funds to AIDS research. I also spoke strongly about the terrible discrimination against homosexuals, but got patted on the top of the head and told I didn't understand.

It feels like forever until you're 18 - but it really does go by fast, at the same time. And for you, it isn't THAT much longer. Not that saying so changes the way you feel at all. But I remember the feeling exactly.

Let me add this: I didn't have internet when I was a kid (omigosh I sound old now!) - so you ARE able to contribute a lot by participating in these discussions and supporting your friends here on this site. So for that, thank you. :)

[Vanessa White]

Yes, Jen, your input and perspective is welcome and refreshing. I do feel old a lot of the time, but your energy will be needed when we get tired for all of this. Peace!

[Jennifer5]

Thank you both... I'm glad to know that I have a say even if I'm under 18.:)

[keltic63]

We went and it was good!
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-03152006-626716.html

[keltic63]

sadly, the bill has been passed to the House of Representatives for discussion and vote:

By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE: The House State Government Committee voted 15-13 to forward to the full House a piece of legislation that would amend the constitution to define "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman.

[Vanessa White]

If there is indeed such negativity about the topic, I am surprised that the vote to amend was so close.

[keltic63]

If there is indeed such negativity about the topic, I am surprised that the vote to amend was so close.

it's very likely that the legislators are using this issue to divert attention from the payraises they voted themselves recently. I'm not sure where they got the idea :shifty: to use the gay marriage issue to deflect attention from other more pressing issues.

and you're right, the vote wasn't a landslide. so it may not get far in the sense of being passed into law, but it will stir enough discussion to allow people to forget about the pay raises.

[Vanessa White]

I hate the reality of politics and what possibly motivates what. It is one of the purest forms of betrayal and mistrust. Peace.