Pa. House OKs same-sex amendment

Marriage to be defined as union between man, woman

By Martha Raffaele

The Associated Press

HARRISBURG -- The state House of Representatives on Tuesday passed by a comfortable margin an amendment to the state constitution that is intended to bolster an existing statutory ban on same-sex marriages.

The proposed amendment to Pennsylvania's constitution would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It also would prohibit state, local and county governments from legally recognizing the unions of unmarried same-sex or heterosexual couples.

The 136-61 House vote sends the measure to the Senate in the first step of a complex constitutional amendment process. Less than one-third of the "yes" votes were supplied by Democrats, who are in the minority.

Rep. Scott Boyd, who sponsored the amendment, said it would ensure that the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bans legal recognition of same-sex unions, can withstand a legal challenge, although none has been filed against Pennsylvania's law.

"Over the past 10 years, there has been a slow but steady erosion of the clear, crisp lines that define marriage throughout the nation," said Boyd, R-Lancaster, citing the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, among other things.

Opponents of the measure, including advocates for gays and lesbians, domestic-violence victims and children, have argued that the amendment would prevent same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples from adopting, and discourage employers from offering domestic-partner benefits.

"I really don't understand except for the political reasons, which is to bring out the conservative vote .... why there is this rush to do this damage ... to families who are committed and loving," said Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia.

Nineteen states have adopted constitutional definitions of marriage. Pennsylvania is among 26 that have enacted statutes, but not constitutional amendments.

The debate in Pennsylvania was unfolding as the U.S. Senate was in the midst of a three-day debate over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

In both cases, the issue is a distraction from more pressing problems, said Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny.

"Clearly, we're trying to replicate what's happening in Washington," Frankel said. "I'm not sure why this issue has risen to such a priority in this legislative body when we need to be dealing with substance."

Constitutional amendments must pass the General Assembly in each of two successive two-year sessions, then win voter approval in a statewide referendum; the earliest that could happen is 2007.

Rep. Scott Hutchinson, R-Venango, was among several supporters of the legislation who said defining marriage was best left to Pennsylvanian voters who could consider the constitutional amendment.

"The voters should decide the definition of marriage, and not some arrogant judges who wish to arbitrarily overturn the law," he said.

Republican Senate leaders hope to bring the House bill to a vote later this month to complete the first phase of the amendment process, said Erik Arneson, chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader David J. Brightbill of Lebanon County.