Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.This year the ugly goes further. This is what Daryl Metcalf wants to add this time:
Marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.As the Tribune-Review's editorial board (yes, Scaife's Braintrust) recently pointed out:
[State Representative Daryl Metcalfe] wants to codify discrimination by amending the Pennsylvania Constitution to deny legal "marriage" to same-sex couples. And the proposed wording of his amendment goes a step further, appearing to not even recognize any other "legal union." But constitutions are not for denying rights; they're for enumerating them. This is poor form, the antithesis of liberty, and the effort should be rejected. (h/t to Bram on this)If they get it, then it should be obvious to everyone - left, right, and center. Gay men and gay women, simply by virtue of the fact that they are citizens of a free democracy, are entitled to the same marriage rights as everyone else. To recontext Lincoln, whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.
It's scheduled to be voted on in the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
The only things bills like this one do is "protect" and enshrine inequality and therefore must be protested.
As I wrote back in 2008:
The subject of the "equality" of this day is an attempt to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman as part of a "Marriage Protection Amendment."
First, let's throw out any straw man arguments: we are talking about the legal institution of marriage. We are not speaking about any particular religion's take on the subject -- they are free to define marriage exactly as they want.
What we are talking about is a legal contract between two adults. A contract that, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, confers over 1,000 protections and benefits to couples who enter into it. A contract that is currently only available to heterosexual couples. This despite the fact that there are already thousands of families in Pennsylvania headed by gays and that society has determined that encouraging stable, monogamous relationships is healthy for children in these and all families.
Moreover, Pennsylvania already prohibits same-sex marriage so this bill is a waste of time and resources.
PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!
1) Make sure that this divisive, hateful initiative never becomes a reality in Pennsylvania by emailing the Senate Judiciary Committee members here and letting them know that you oppose discrimination in our constitution.
2) Call the Senate Judiciary Committee members (phone numbers here) and tell them to vote NO on SB 707.
_______________________________________________________
You can click here to see what other Pittsburgh bloggers have to say on this issue.
.
I am just so grateful to the Pennsylvania legislature for acting to protect the institution of marriage from those despicable homosexual hordes. I mean if my gay friend Sue - and don't get me wrong, I don't hate teh gays, some of my best friends are gay - but if she were allowed to marry her partner it would disturb my life in many many many frightening ways. Ways I can not now imagine without some horrific soul-crushing shudder.But it seems that the reason for that blog for equality day is back. This is the text a few in our illustrious State Senate want to add as an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution:
Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.Other sections of the Declarations of Rights revolve around guaranteeing the rights of Pennsylvanians or otherwise limiting the power of the state.
Section 1
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.Or the last one:
Section 28
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.So how does defining marriage in such a way that it limits the rights of gay Pennsylvanians fit into the spirit of the first or last section?
