c/p from Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents
OK, on the one hand we have the "marriage protection" amendment that would embed discrimination in to the Pennsylvania Constitution. Been there, tried to do that.
Today comes word that another Pennsylvania Senator plans to introduce a marriage equality bill.
Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, today announced plans to introduce a bill that would offer "full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania." The measure also would recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.
"There has never been a more propitious time for Pennsylvania to embrace equality and enshrine the civil right of all Pennsylvanians to marry," Mr. Leach said.
But don't tell that to Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Blair. He wants to strengthen Pennsylvania's 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only permitted between one man and one woman.
Mr. Eichelberger has a bill to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only allowable between one man and one woman. He thinks that would make it more difficult for an "activist court" decision to overturn the 1996 law.
Before you raise the religious infringement argument, please note that Senator Leach's legislation would not require any religious group or organization to recognize or perform marriages which they "don't sanction." No word from Diane Gramley and the American Family Association of Pennsylvania on this newest twist in Pennsylvania equality efforts.
Wow. I am very curious as to how this will play out. The argument against the "marriage protection" amendment has been the Pennsylvania DOMA which prohibits same sex marriages. In other words, the existing law was good enough to "protect" opposite sex marriage so no need to amend the Constitution. That's no longer absolutely true.
Will this move force socially conservative legislators to move to the right in support of the amendment or to the middle in support of neither bill (and perhaps to pass the less scary HB 300 as no one has argued that housing protections will destroy heterosexual marriages --- yet)? Will this galvanize the progressive wing of Pennsylvania and create a surge of grassroots energy to move the Commonwealth closer to equality for all citizens? I'm fairly certain it will galvanize the wingnuts, but the trifecta of state legislation might just divide their energies as folks pick their poison to speak.
I had a conversation with the President of the Steel City Stonewall Democrats who continues to urge concerned citizens to schedule face to face meetings with their legislators. That is the single best tool you have to push for full equality.
There's a lot on the table -- the two anti-discrimination bills, the pending hate crimes bill, the anti-gay "marriage protection" and now this effort to promote marriage equality. This is an important time to take actioaction. Make a Pride resolution to add a few hours of meeting time to your celebration time.
Remember, Stonewall was about standing up and fighting back against oppression and discrimination. Celebrate the spirit by being part of the solution.
* Are you gay?
* how will that affect your ability to do your job?
* will you be pursuing a "gay agenda"?
This was his answer. He received a standing ovation for it.
I do not think I have ever seen a candidate answer a question like this so well and according to my friend, this was the loudest applause of the day, nearly everyone clapped and it was the only question where any candidate had people on their feet.Hat tip, Equality Florida Blog.This sort of questioning has happened in candidate forums in St. Petersburg before. In 2005, a woman known as "Momma Tee" asked an openly gay candidate, Darden Rice, if she was gay. When Ms. Rice said yes, "Momma Tee" said "God's not down with that" and stormed out of the building. (Read more here.) Saturday was a different scene in St. Pete.
That last question he flat out doesn't answer re: Prop 8.
Q Okay. And just a separate question. Today in California, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General for President Bush, and David Boies, are introducing a lawsuit against the state of California, saying that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the ability to marry they are violating the Equal Protection Rights under the U.S. Constitution for same-sex couples. Why are they wrong?
MR. GIBBS: I have not read the opinion or --
Q The President supports the idea that people should be able to -- same-sex couples should be able to enter in civil unions. Boies and Olson -- a very conservative lawyer -- are saying that is a violation --
MR. GIBBS: Olson. (Laughter.)
Q Not Boies, right -- Olson, a very conservative lawyer, saying that is a violation of the Constitution. It is also the position the President holds, that there should be civil unions, not same-sex marriage. Why is it not a violation of the Equal Protection clause?
MR. GIBBS: Jake, let me have somebody take a look at the pleading that they're going to make. I don't know what they're arguing --
Q Generally. Just forget the specific argument; I'm just talking about their general argument is that by having -- by not allowing same-sex couples to marry, it is a violation of equal protection.
MR. GIBBS: Right, well, again --
Q And that's the President's position, so --
MR. GIBBS: But let me -- well, the President's position, we're all aware of. I hesitate to be general about the legal underpinnings of an argument based on some portion of the Constitution. I think that they may be somewhat hard to generalize. So let me have somebody take a look at that and see if we have anything based on what Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies are doing.
Yes, sir....Q But today's context includes the financial crisis there and the controversy over Proposition 8. The President, as far as we know, is not going to speak out on any of these issues while he's in California. Do you think that's appropriate?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let's try not to mix up the questions here and let me see if I can keep them straight. I think the notion that the President isn't concerned about the economic conditions of this country I don't think holds a lot of validity, given the actions that he's taken to get our economy moving again; to get the resources that California needs to invest in their infrastructure and to take care of their citizens; to ensure that kids have health care. I think he's taken steps to do that and I think most people in California are confident in that, as well.
On the eve of the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall, come join us in celebrating the achievements of the LGBT equality movement:
I'll Toast to That Thursday, June 25th, 2009 6:00pm Charles Froelick Gallery 817 SW 2nd Avenue $40 beforehand, $50 at the door (tickets available here)
Attire: pizazzulous
A special thank you to our sponsors: Organic Nation Spirits Devil's Food Catering Raptor Ridge
Music by: DJ Scotty D
tf-8" />
Ticket price qualifies for the Oregon Political Tax Credit which means you can get every penny of your ticket price back at tax time! Click here for more information on the Oregon Political Tax Credit. Questions? Call 503/222.6151
Subscribe to Reader feed
Subscribe to daily Email
No comments:
Post a Comment