There is a movement in Pennsylvania.....

[Emproph]

First off: SENATE BILL No. 1250:

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

I ran across this story the other day by Deborah Hamilton of pa4marriage:
State amendment would ban 'counterfeit' marriage

She first states that "civil unions and marriage are the same in the eyes of the law."

Benefits-wise, they’re NOT the same, but she equates the two in order to make the demand for equality seem not only shallow, but sinister:

The strategy is clear -- proponents want to assure that civil unions can be legitimized either by judicial order or by legislative action and then push to the next step.

It struck my attention though, because of something Keltic points out on his blog:

The intent is not to define marriage, but to exclude certain people from participating in marriage, and the attending civil benefits. If it were not otherwise, there would be no need to include the phrase "functional equivalent of marriage" in the bill.

She admits as much in the article:

Adoption of the Marriage Protection Amendment in Pennsylvania by the voting public would prevent unions other than husband and wife from being given the same legal status by the commonwealth. It would prevent ''civil unions,'' the preliminary step to gay marriage, from getting a foot in the door.

I recently wrote a diary at Pam’s House Blend called "Quick, look over here, it’s all about gays!", because here in Florida, they’re trying to claim that our similarly worded amendment would not affect existing domestic partnerships:

Anchor: So it's not, so they're saying it's not the substantial equivalent of a marriage.

Derek Newton (Florida Red and Blue): Well the bottom line of that is, that's going to be determined in court.

So even though the civil union argument thing doesn‘t really apply in the PA case, I'm wondering how these measures would affect private legal contracts.

As this article points out:

Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

So am I totally out of the ballpark for suggesting that legal contracts, be they between homosexual or heterosexual partners, could also be in jeopardy - or at least more in jeopardy?
--
And on the flip side of that tact:

Derek Newton (Florida Red and Blue): And even though the language isn't identical, you don't have to look much farther than, like I said Michigan, or Ohio for example, where a similar amendment, again, not exactly the same, but a similar amendment has been used as a defense against domestic violence. Where somebody who had abused his live in girlfriend said you can't recognize our relationship.

Cythia Hawkins-Leon: That's outrageous.

Derek Newton: Well let me just...

As one of the commenters mentioned:

The law professor doesn't know similar amendments have been use as a domestic violence defense? The Ohio case went to the state supreme court.

I still have to do more research on all of this, but I did find some preliminary information from the Marriage Law Foundation.

First, for some context, this is from the article Keltic linked to:

In a presenting a position paper on behalf of William Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation, Ms. [Deborah] Hamilton said it is critical for Pennsylvania to define marriage because states like Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey have successfully re-defined the traditional definition of marriage by approving civil unions.

And now from the Marriage Law Foundation:

Ohio: “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” Ohio Const., Art. XV, sec. 11 (2004)

Note: Affect of Ohio Marriage Amendment on Domestic Violence Laws

I realize this is a lot of info, and I apologize that I don’t know what it all means in a legal sense, but I wanted to bring it up in the effort to help distill some sticking points talking points.

As I mentioned in the article I wrote, even the other side can’t predict the future, legal or otherwise. And if a question remains about these things, so too does the potential threat of them.

Which, to take a page from their "dire consequences" playbook, would make the questions themselves the talking points.

(Oh, and Hamilton, just in case you're listening, unlike you, we'll make sure we have evidence of those consequences before presenting them as legitimate concerns.)

[Vanessa White]

Sometimes, I need to read your posts a couple of times to digest them, but it is ALWAYS worth it.....

My understanding from the representative that I visited two weeks ago, is that if this did not get voted into approval on the Senate floor before they break for the summer, it is essentially dead.

However, I KNOW in my heart of hearts that it will not STAY dead.....It will be coming back to haunt voters as soon as the new legislators get moved into their offices.

So, if it stays stuck in Appropriations for a few weeks, although I don't want to bank on that, I am hoping it gives PA time to reorganize and enhance our strategy. I feel very fragmented here in my local community, because almost no one wants to weigh in officially on this; at least not in my local LGBT community. So many have become disheartened, tired, apathetic, scared- or all of the above.

I still have yet to converse with my state senator about this; I am not even sure if she is up for re-election in the fall. But I see it the way you do, Patrick: I think that if they get this to the point of a citizen referendum or vote, I see the writing on the wall about any kind of legal document between partners being at stake. I don't think people get that part; if this were to ever go through, which I have to say I think it is a few overzealous persons, probably with strong religious motivations, that are making the most noise about this, because I think a lot of legislators do NOT want to amend a constitution over an issue like this; too volatile. But, if it goes through, I fear for protecting myself and my partner, our family, to hold onto what we have created together.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

F




So even though the civil union argument thing doesn‘t really apply in the PA case, I'm wondering how these measures would affect private legal contracts.

As this article points out:


So am I totally out of the ballpark for suggesting that legal contracts, be they between homosexual or heterosexual partners, could also be in jeopardy - or at least more in jeopardy?
--


I still have to do more research on all of this, but I did find some preliminary information from the Marriage Law Foundation.

First, for some context, this is from the article Keltic linked to:


And now from the Marriage Law Foundation:


I realize this is a lot of info, and I apologize that I don’t know what it all means in a legal sense, but I wanted to bring it up in the effort to help distill some sticking points talking points.

As I mentioned in the article I wrote, even the other side can’t predict the future, legal or otherwise. And if a question remains about these things, so too does the potential threat of them.

Which, to take a page from their "dire consequences" playbook, would make the questions themselves the talking points.
[/SIZE]

Hi E, and everyone:

I admit up front that I do not recall the exact language of the PA amendment. If indeed it is worded similarly to the Ohio amendment (or really, to any such that passed in 2004 or 2006) then I think I know what you're dealing with, as that's what we defeated here in '06.

The OH case pertained to an unmarried heterosexual cohabiting couple. The male was abusing his female partner. When she filed for domestic violence protections from the state of OH (I believe she requested a restraining order, anyone know for sure?), she was told that the 'marriage amendment' made it illegal for the state of OH to issue her a legal restraining order (or other protections) against her abuser.

After a year or two, a state court struck down that decision and stated that issuing such protections did NOT necessarily violate the marriage amendment.

The point, though, is precisely as Emproph suggested: THEIR position is the one leading to a slippery slope. We do not know what ramifications these amendments may have down the road in terms of cases like the one in OH. It appears that whether or not couples will receive any protections at all will then be left to the discretion of court judges interpreting what the marriage amendment means. Do we really want to open this legal wormcan??

Btw: that is the precisely the argument that defeated the same exact amendment here in AZ.

Originally Posted by Vanessa White

Sometimes, I need to read your posts a couple of times to digest them, but it is ALWAYS worth it.....

Me too. It gets easier though. I've been learning to read Emprophisch.


However, I KNOW in my heart of hearts that it will not STAY dead.....It will be coming back to haunt voters as soon as the new legislators get moved into their offices.

I agree. Even if it gets on the ballot and voted down (this IS supposed to go on the ballot, correct?), our opponents will try to bring back some version of it in future years. It's happening in AZ that way right now.

So, if it stays stuck in Appropriations for a few weeks, although I don't want to bank on that, I am hoping it gives PA time to reorganize and enhance our strategy. I feel very fragmented here in my local community, because almost no one wants to weigh in officially on this; at least not in my local LGBT community. So many have become disheartened, tired, apathetic, scared- or all of the above.

I still have yet to converse with my state senator about this; I am not even sure if she is up for re-election in the fall. But I see it the way you do, Patrick: I think that if they get this to the point of a citizen referendum or vote, I see the writing on the wall about any kind of legal document between partners being at stake. I don't think people get that part; if this were to ever go through, which I have to say I think it is a few overzealous persons, probably with strong religious motivations, that are making the most noise about this, because I think a lot of legislators do NOT want to amend a constitution over an issue like this; too volatile. But, if it goes through, I fear for protecting myself and my partner, our family, to hold onto what we have created together.

I hear you.

Now. I cannot imagine PA voters going for this kind of thing if they are educated as to what it's really about. Is the equality organization in PA going to run an awareness campaign?

Vanessa, you can email me if you want to hear exactly what we did in our campaign here in AZ. Who is leading the campaign to defeat this amendment in PA? Have they 'saddled up' for the battle yet? If they are open to it, I would suggest they get in touch with the AZ leaders who are responsible for defeating the one here. Our campaign was talking about training other states in how to defeat marriage amendments at the wrap-up parties. Maybe AZ and PA leaders should get in touch with each other.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Vanessa White

Sometimes, I need to read your posts a couple of times to digest them, but it is ALWAYS worth it.....

My understanding from the representative that I visited two weeks ago, is that if this did not get voted into approval on the Senate floor before they break for the summer, it is essentially dead.

However, I KNOW in my heart of hearts that it will not STAY dead.....It will be coming back to haunt voters as soon as the new legislators get moved into their offices.

So, if it stays stuck in Appropriations for a few weeks, although I don't want to bank on that, I am hoping it gives PA time to reorganize and enhance our strategy. I feel very fragmented here in my local community, because almost no one wants to weigh in officially on this; at least not in my local LGBT community. So many have become disheartened, tired, apathetic, scared- or all of the above.

I still have yet to converse with my state senator about this; I am not even sure if she is up for re-election in the fall. But I see it the way you do, Patrick: I think that if they get this to the point of a citizen referendum or vote, I see the writing on the wall about any kind of legal document between partners being at stake. I don't think people get that part; if this were to ever go through, which I have to say I think it is a few overzealous persons, probably with strong religious motivations, that are making the most noise about this, because I think a lot of legislators do NOT want to amend a constitution over an issue like this; too volatile. But, if it goes through, I fear for protecting myself and my partner, our family, to hold onto what we have created together.

After reading all that, I feel really confident that you’re on top of things, in a practical sense, and in an overall perspective-wise sense.

I’m glad you confirmed what I’ve been thinking. (Stay tuned for my response to Zerbie )

That said:

Sometimes, I need to read your posts a couple of times to digest them, but it is ALWAYS worth it.....

Only a 'couple of times' this time eh? So I am getting better...


Or am I getting better?...

[Emproph]

The point, though, is precisely as Emproph suggested: THEIR position is the one leading to a slippery slope. We do not know what ramifications these amendments may have down the road in terms of cases like the one in OH. It appears that whether or not couples will receive any protections at all will then be left to the discretion of court judges interpreting what the marriage amendment means. Do we really want to open this legal wormcan??

Btw: that is the precisely the argument that defeated the same exact amendment here in AZ.

And may the opening of that can of worms begin...

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

And may the opening of that can of worms begin...

Ugh! Why?!?!

[Emproph]

SB 1250


Got Lawyer?

[Emproph]

SB 1250


Do we really want to open this legal wormcan?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

SB 1250


Got Lawyer?

That's BRILLIANT!!!!

OMG! You need to distribute that photo + caption to everyone you know in PA and have them pass it on.

Patrick, darlin', you need to sell that idea to PA.


Brilliant!! Jaw-dropping fantastic - I LOVE it!!!

The ambiguity of the image and slogan are terrific -- totally takes the mind out of the framework laid by the extreme right, too, which needs to happen.

That was genius! Darlin' E, Patrick: TEN GOLDEN CARROTS. : award:

Do you work in advertizing? I am so curious. What is it you do for your day job? Pretty please, I really want to know.

[Emproph]

Zerbie, I apologize, I don’t even know how to respond to that. Especially that much kudos coming from you.

I appreciate it, and thank you, and for the record, I was down for the count by the time I read your response -- which is one reason why I haven’t gotten back sooner. Too much.

My feeling is though, let’s just keep running with this. I’m perfectly open to sharing the truth of my life, but as the perfectionist that you know I am, explaining ANY tangent can become cumbersome to the point of debilitation.

And that’s basically an apology to everyone. I hate not responding to things that are addressed to me specifically.

P.S. No, no ad-career here, Zerbie. As you can see, my brand of humor isn’t quite of the dinner table variety…

I’m more one of those rocks and stones crying out due to lack of stimulation…

[Emproph]

Posted on Tue, May. 6, 2008

Pa. Senate set to vote on gay-marriage ban

HARRISBURG - The stage is set for the full Pennsylvania Senate to vote on a constitutional amendment that would outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state, although chances appear slim it will gain traction in the House.

[Emproph]

All written within the past few days.

Revenge or Karmic Debt or Justice or Whining?

[Emproph]

Anti-Gay Amendment Advances In Pennsylvania

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. (story)

That last link goes to the March 7, 2008 365Gay story:
Poll: Wide Support For Civil Unions In Pennsylvania
--
And there was another article I can't find right now, but I read that that legal contracts between heterosexual couples has already been upheld in court in MN, but the question remained for homosexual couples.

So, so much for an automatic PA 'can o’ worms' heterosexual threat.

But, as the PA polling on civil unions shows, most people don’t want to be expressly malicious toward gays.

And also, as the anti-gay pa4marriage has expressed - they ARE against civil unions, and are therefore at odds with 65% of the PA population.

Which brings us back to the exploitability of our legal worm can:

If they admit that they are at odds with even civil unions for gays, then, as evidenced everywhere elsewhere, they are also against legal contracts between gays.

Whom but future judges and juries, are to say otherwise?

Implication -- malice.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Anti-Gay Amendment Advances In Pennsylvania


That last link goes to the March 7, 2008 365Gay story:
Poll: Wide Support For Civil Unions In Pennsylvania
--
And there was another article I can't find right now, but I read that that legal contracts between heterosexual couples has already been upheld in court in MN, but the question remained for homosexual couples.

So, so much for an automatic PA 'can o’ worms' heterosexual threat.

Nahh, I maintain that it is still very much a wormcan. The fact that these things keep appearing in courts being one piece of evidence of worm-cannery. Different states have been going through different discussions and legal interpretations of these amendments and their implications.



But, as the PA polling on civil unions shows, most people don’t want to be expressly malicious toward gays.

And also, as the anti-gay pa4marriage has expressed - they ARE against civil unions, and are therefore at odds with 65% of the PA population.

Brilliant. Then this amendment is a fringe minority thing at odds with most of PA voters. That hands the amendment's opponents a good campaign advantage.

Which brings us back to the exploitability of our legal worm can:

If they admit that they are at odds with even civil unions for gays, then, as evidenced everywhere elsewhere, they are also against legal contracts between gays.

Whom but future judges and juries, are to say otherwise?

Implication -- malice.

Oh, totally. These amendments are malicious. They are just plain mean.

[Vanessa White]

I heard a little blurb on the radio this morning referencing SB 1250, but cannot find anything about it; I am not sure if they voted on it yesterday or not, but if they did, the roll call of the vote is not yet on the website, I just checked. Even if it did get voted, and approved, it is slim chances that it will make it through the Democratic House easily, if at all. But, it is becoming more and more apparent that the objections for same gender marriage or legal status is a religious one; I know that it is not new information, but fuels the fire of my agitation about what motivates people to do what they do in a legislative arena.

There is no doubt that this is a total wormcan if it goes all the way. Great logo BTW Patrick, may be a good design for our future efforts!!!

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Vanessa White

I heard a little blurb on the radio this morning referencing SB 1250, but cannot find anything about it; I am not sure if they voted on it yesterday or not, but if they did, the roll call of the vote is not yet on the website, I just checked. Even if it did get voted, and approved, it is slim chances that it will make it through the Democratic House easily, if at all. But, it is becoming more and more apparent that the objections for same gender marriage or legal status is a religious one; I know that it is not new information, but fuels the fire of my agitation about what motivates people to do what they do in a legislative arena.

There is no doubt that this is a total wormcan if it goes all the way. Great logo BTW Patrick, may be a good design for our future efforts!!!

roll call for yesterday is up: it wasn't voted on. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...dte=05/06/2008

[keltic63]

sB1250 is "stalled" it could die, but it's possible that it could also be brought back. Here's part of an email I received a few minutes ago:

Last night, the Pennsylvania Senate voted to "Table" the proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned marriages for same-sex couples, civil unions and possibly more for all unmarried couples.
SB 1250 is now off the voting calendar and can not be considered unless there is another vote to move it back on the calendar.
The prime sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Michael Brubaker (R-Lancaster), stated that he was proposing the legislation be tabled because the Speaker of the House, Dennis O'Brien (R-Philadelphia), was going to assign the legislation to the House State Government Committee if it passed the Senate. The House State Government Committee is chaired by Rep. Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia), a strong supporter of the LGBT community, who is opposed to the legislation. Rep. Josephs has stated that she would not move the legislation out of committee.
It is important for everyone to understand that the bill is STALLED, not DEAD. Sen. Brubaker said that if the House indicates that the bill will go to another committee or that it is interested in voting on the bill, the Senate will bring it to the floor for a vote

[Vanessa White]

Hot off of the cell phone presses via Harrisburg, PA., from Keltic himself:

Keltic is in Harrisburg today with his Choral group; they sang in the capitol rotunda, which is SOOOOOOO cool. He called to tell me that he had some down time after their performance, and he went to visit his Senator, who is one of the co-sponsors of SB 1250. Well, his senator was not there, but he did speak to someone in his senator's office, who told him that this bill is going NOWHERE. Apparently, there is a great deal of dissention within the Republican party in our senate here in PA over this bill; there are some Republicans who oppose the bill, and the ones that are up for re-election do not want to vote on it before them. So, it has been unofficially "tabled" for now, which means that it is looking more promising that it WILL NOT be out of the Senate by vote anytime before they end for the summer. And, it has yet to go to the House, which is highly unlikely in terms of time. That means, if it stays tabled, then it will have to be resurrected from scratch in 2009 with the new Senate.

I will continue to keep you posted....... but very encouraging for now.

[Zerbie]

That's encouraging news. The marriage amendments are no longer the 'slam dunk' for our opponents that they once were.

Thank you, Keltic, for your dedication and for popping in to your senator's office.

Good news. Very good news.

[keltic63]

I couldn't let this pass! I was looking around our state legislature website, and checked on this particular amendment, which was "tabled" back in May.

It never made it back to life, and in order to continue, it needed to be voted on by both the Senate and the House before summer recess.


Summer recess started on July 4, 2008.

Ding dong, this bill is dead! which old bill? the wicked bill! ding dong discrimination's dead........