Backers, foes of gay marriage collide at Capitol

Backers, foes of gay marriage collide at Capitol

By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Lawyers, religious leaders and advocates for gays and lesbians faced off yesterday in one of the most contentious and highly charged Senate Appropriations Committee hearings in recent history.

At issue is a proposal to strengthen the state's ban on gay marriage with a constitutional amendment and a provision preventing other kinds of unions that are functionally equivalent to marriage.

Proponents of the measure invoked Bible passages while opponents cried discrimination and attorneys on both sides argued over whether a constitutional amendment is necessary when Pennsylvania already has a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The hearing turned at times into a verbal sparring match between Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, and various advocates for the amendment who argued that homosexuality is immoral and that government should encourage relationships that involve procreation. They said same-sex unions would undermine God's plan and cause traditional marriage to become undervalued and obsolete.

Mr. Fumo railed back, calling those arguments ignorant.

"If two homosexuals are allowed to get married, is that going to affect your marriage? Your marriage is that weak you're going to get a divorce over that?" he said to Philadelphian James Horn, a father of eight who testified in favor of the constitutional amendment.

Mr. Horn had said that "changing the meaning of marriage will further discourage men and women from marrying. ... If we leave the door open to change the meaning of marriage and lessen the special place a husband and wife hold in our society, we are saying it is even less important for men and women to be responsible to each other and their children."

The Rev. Riess Potterveld, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary, said gay people have long been subject to discrimination and recriminations and should not be subject to further prejudice and polarization that would be brought by the proposed constitutional amendment.

Scott Hollander, executive director of KidsVoice, said his board members are divided on the gay marriage issue but unanimous in opposing the language banning "the functional equivalent of marriage." Under that language, children placed with unmarried foster parents could be denied health insurance through domestic-partner benefit programs and could face hurdles if those foster families want to adopt them, he said.

"They could lose many of the benefits they currently enjoy," said Mr. Hollander, whose group serves abused and neglected children in Pittsburgh.

Sen. John Gordner, R-Columbia, said that hasn't been a widespread problem in states with similar bans.

The Marriage Protection Coalition of Greater Pittsburgh weighed in with written testimony. The amendment "will protect the traditional family from being discriminated against or displaced, due to increasing alternative marriage-like lifestyle behavior in society," wrote Sharon Capretto, president of the group.

The hearing's audience included more than 100 people, some wearing green "Protect Marriage" buttons and others carrying signs reading "Marriage Is Not Gay Crime."

The Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on the amendment next week. The issue was before the committee because of the estimated $2 million cost of advertising required as part of the constitutional amendment process, although cost was mentioned only once during the three-hour hearing.

Amending the constitution requires lawmakers' approval during two separate legislative sessions and approval by voters in a referendum.

Proponents say voters should have their say, but opponents say the constitution was put in place to protect the rights of the minority and that the proposed amendment would restrict those rights.

"The majority of people in Germany did not accept Jews. Does that make it right that they exterminated them?" Mr. Fumo asked. "If you allow the tyranny of the majority to prevail, then no one is safe."

Committee approval would send the bill to the floor for a vote by the Republican-controlled Senate. If it passes there, it is unlikely Democrats, who control the House, would give it a hearing this session, and GOP House members are focused on other issues, like tax reform, Republican Leader Sam Smith told the Pennsylvania Press Club on Monday.

Tracie Mauriello can be reached at tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 1-717-787-2141.
First published on April 30, 2008 at 12:00 am