PA: Editorial--"New Senate measure against gay marriage is a waste of Harrisburg's time"

Link: Allentown Morning Call

A state Senate committee on March 18 approved an amendment to Pennsylvania's state constitution that would ban marriage between people of the same sex. But gay marriage is already prohibited by a 1996 law, so this proposal was mainly an opportunity for speeches and demagoguery.

The committee's hasty decision also was a waste of time. Regardless of the personal feelings or religious training of Judiciary Committee members, the Senate has more pressing issues before it. There are unfunded repair and maintenance needs for the state's roads and bridges, the unresolved pursuit of a more equitable way to adequately fund the public schools and a series of problems with the law regulating casino gambling that ought to have higher priority, to mention just a few. But the Judiciary Committee would move gay marriage to the top of the list.

Some members of the Judiciary Committee tried to at least slow their colleagues down, urging that a vote be postponed so further hearings could take place. Only one public hearing was held on Senate Bill 1250, hardly enough for a bill that could strike at individual rights and hobble Pennsylvania businesses.

Additionally, a key bit of language in the potential amendment is problematic. The resolution says that nothing but a marriage between one man and one woman is valid as marriage or ''the functional equivalent of marriage.'' Even Sen. Jane Clare Orie, R-Allegheny, who agreed with the purpose of the resolution, expressed concern about this part of it. Ostensibly, adding that phrase would block future Legislatures from legalizing civil unions, as other states have done.

The legitimate concern is that if this vague language is kept intact, health benefits and legal rights -- among other things -- could be threatened for partners of people who work for Pennsylvania employers. Many employers already offer benefits to employees' partners, including partners of the same sex. It's a benefit that helps companies to attract good employees, and the state should not insert itself into that business decision.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act already prohibits gay marriage. Creating different standards for same-sex couples is one thing, but robbing them of their rights as citizens and life-partners of citizens is something else completely.

A constitutional amendment must travel a process of nearly three years in Pennsylvania, including approval in a statewide referendum, a regimen that serves the useful purpose of winnowing out frivolous or ill-conceived changes. But, just getting such a hot-button issue on the ballot serves the purpose of getting out the conservative vote, and that may ultimately be what is behind the effort for this un-needed measure.

You could write it off as just another episode of political mischief, but it is insulting to all those Pennsylvanians who happen to be gay.

[jw]