Posted on Thu, Jun. 22, 2006

email this

print this

reprint or license this

Pa. Senate backs gay-marriage ban

The amendment omitted House language voiding domestic partnerships. The versions must be reconciled.

By Angela Couloumbis and Amy Worden

Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG - The state Senate yesterday approved a constitutional amendment reaffirming the state's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but left intact existing legal recognitions of domestic partnerships between gay couples and unmarried heterosexual couples.

With yesterday's 38-12 vote, the amendment will now be returned to the House, where members only several weeks ago had passed a more restrictive version of the same-sex marriage ban.

Steve Miskin, spokesman for House Majority Leader Sam Smith (R., Jefferson) said he was uncertain whether the chamber would consider the Senate version before the summer recess began June 30. "What passed the House overwhelmingly ended up not passing the Senate. The version that passed the Senate failed in the House," he said. "We're going to see if the differences can be reconciled."

An amendment must pass both chambers in two consecutive legislative sessions, after which voters would be asked to decide the issue in a referendum. That means the question could go to voters as early as next year.

When it came time to vote on the measure yesterday, no senator took the podium to defend its purpose or merits. Only the critics spoke up, among them, Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D., Phila.), who called the amendment discriminatory and shameful.

"If people's marriages anywhere are in danger because of a gay couple living together, then God help your marriage," Fumo said. "... What nonsense. What hypocrisy. What blasphemy."

He added: "Someday we will look back at this and hang our heads in shame. Maybe not this generation, but the next generation will."

Opponents of the amendment, including gay rights and civil liberties groups, said they were pleased that at least the Senate did not approve the House's version of the bill, which they believed would impede benefits currently available to both gay and heterosexual married couples who live together.

"We would prefer not to have any constitutional amendment," said Stacey Sobel, executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia. But the version passed by the Senate "ensures that the rights Pennsylvanians enjoy today won't be taken away."

Before yesterday's vote, the debate in the chamber revolved around whether members should consider the stricter version approved by the House on June 6.

That bill also aimed to bolster current state law, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But in addition, it would have barred the state, or any of its cities or municipalities, from creating or recognizing a legal status for unmarried individuals that is "identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage."

Sen. Jane C. Orie (R., Allegheny) argued that without the additional language also restricting other kinds of unions, the same-sex marriage ban would be open to legal challenge and, eventually, interpretation by the courts. In other states, she and others argued yesterday, court rulings have chipped away at same-sex marriage bans, in some cases, allowing for civil unions.

Allowing gay marriage, she contended, "would open the door" for defining marriage as unions between other groups, including "fathers and daughters."

But senators yesterday voted 31-19 against adopting the House version of the ban. They also rejected an amendment that would have banned civil unions in Pennsylvania.

Sen. Minority Leader Robert J. Mellow (D., Lackawanna) pointed out that, under current law, civil unions are already prohibited in Pennsylvania.

He also said there is no current legal challenge - and hasn't been one - to the 1996 law defining marriage between a man and woman.

"Let's not try to deceive people this evening," he said.

Sen. Jim Ferlo (D., Allegheny), who voted against the amendment, said he believed the political timing of the same-sex marriage ban "takes a page out of the Karl Rove school of defensive politics," which he said dictates that, when you're down in the polls, "throw up the smoke screen and start appealing to people's fears and misconceptions."

How They Voted

• Senators from the Philadelphia area who voted to amend the state constitution to reaffirm the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman were Joe Conti (R., Bucks); Edwin Erickson (R., Delaware); Stewart Greenleaf (R., Montgomery); Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware); John Rafferty Jr. (R., Chester); Michael Stack (D., Phila.); Robert Tomlinson (R., Bucks); Robert Wonderling (R., Montgomery).

• Senators who voted against the measure: Andrew E. Dinniman (D., Chester); Vincent J. Fumo (D., Phila.); Vincent Hughes (D., Phila.); Shirley Kitchen (D., Phila.); Christine Tartaglione (D., Phila.); LeAnna Washington (D., Phila.); Constance Williams (D., Montgomery); Anthony Williams (D., Phila.).

At a Glance

The Law:Pennsylvania's 1996 "Defense of Marriage" law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. It is silent on the matter of civil unions.

The Legislation: The bill passed by the state Senate yesterday would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. A bill passed by the state House carries the same definition, but also is geared to outlaw civil unions between gays by banning "a legal union identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals."

The Debate: One side wants a constitutional ban on gay marriages - and some take it further to a ban on civil unions between gays - to guarantee that no state judge is able to allow either by acting on a legal challenge to state law. Opponents say a constitutional amendment is not needed to counter a hypothetical challenge to the state's Defense of Marriage law. They also say civil unions have nothing to do with marriage, and a ban could take away rights from unmarried people who live together, gay or straight.

The Process:Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution requires the approval by the House and Senate in two successive two-year sessions of the General Assembly and then the approval of voters in a statewide referendum. The earliest a proposed amendment could be placed on the statewide ballot is 2007.

SOURCE: Associated Press