Pennsylvania
proposal revives same-sex marriage debate

Marriage was on the minds of some Pennsylvania lawmakers last week as the legislature returned to the capitol. More than 200 people crammed into the rotunda on Tuesday to rally for amending the state constitution to define "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman. The legislation, which has been introduced in both the house and the senate, would reinforce an existing ban on same-sex marriages and prohibit the government from recognizing the unions of cohabiting gay and lesbian couples. The rally prompted Republican gubernatorial candidates Jim Panyard and Bill Scranton as well as Republican U.S. representative Joe Pitts to issue statements supporting the proposed "marriage protection" amendment. Opponents of the measure and political analysts chalk up the movement to election-year politics. "It really helps the Republican Party a great deal to be able to mobilize their base," said Gary Mucciaroni, a political science professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. While Republican leaders in both houses support the idea, the prime sponsors say there's no certainty of a swift vote in what would be the first step of a complicated process. Constitutional amendments must pass the general assembly in each of two successive two-year sessions and then win voter approval in a statewide referendum; the earliest that could happen is 2007. "They really have not told me how quickly it's going to move. I can tell you that they are committed," said Republican Bob Regola, a freshman senator whose 2004 campaign platform included opposition to same-sex unions. Regola's bill has 14 Republican cosponsors. And nearly 90 representatives, including a dozen Democrats, have signed on as cosponsors to a house bill introduced by Rep. Scott Boyd, a Republican from Lancaster. Boyd said the amendment is a necessary preemptive strike against lawsuits that would seek to overturn the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed in 1996. Last week's rally was held just days after a Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old Maryland state law against same-sex marriage, declaring it violates that state's constitutional guarantee of equal rights. The judge immediately stayed the order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court. "As far as I'm concerned, [the current law] does go far enough, but some folks have filed suits in other states," Boyd said. "I feel it's prudent to allow the people of Pennsylvania to amend their own constitution to be certain that there's clarity." Gay rights groups argue that the amendment could jeopardize unmarried couples' access to domestic-partner benefits, such as family or medical leave and health insurance. Recent litigation over the issue in Pennsylvania involved a 2004 lawsuit by legislators against a gay Bucks County couple who discussed challenging the 1996 law after they were denied a marriage license. The lawmakers, all of whom sponsored the law, wanted the courts to affirm it to forestall any legal challenge by the couple, which never materialized. A Bucks County judge threw out the lawsuit, saying the lawmakers didn't have legal standing to sue the couple. Larry Frankel, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said he has no reason to believe that the push for a constitutional amendment will gain any traction. "There is a vocal small minority who believes that this is the most important issue, but a majority of Pennsylvanians, if you did a poll, this is not what they would say," he said. Amendments banning same-sex marriage have gained momentum in recent years, with Texas becoming the 19th state to adopt such a measure in November, Mucciaroni said. "In most cases where it really gets on the agenda, it seems to be passed," he said. (AP)