Same-Sex Marriage Ban Stalls

- Same-Sex Marriage Ban Stalls

By Bradley Vasoli





Harrisburg - The Pennsylvania Marriage Amendment, a constitutional measure to define marriage in the commonwealth as a union between one man and one woman, was tabled indefinitely yesterday.

Sen. Mike Brubaker (R-Lancaster) withdrew his amendment from consideration after Pennsylvania House of Representatives Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R-Philadelphia) stated that he would refer the amendment, if passed out of the Senate, to the House Committee on State Government and it had become clear that its majority chair, Rep. Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia), would not schedule the measure for timely consideration.

"Sen. Brubaker's very disappointed," his spokesman Nathan Flood said. "Sen. Brubaker hopes that the speaker of the House would reconsider sending the bill to the state government committee."

Mr. Flood said that it is procedurally important that the state Constitution codify marriage law as applying only to couples of one man and one woman because many Pennsylvania laws treat marriages that way. The introduction of homosexual marriages in one fell swoop, he said, would confound the application of many of those earlier statutes.

"There are about 1,200 laws that were written with the understanding that a marriage was between one man and one woman that would be affected and that would have to be altered," he said.

State Sen. Anthony Williams (D-Philadelphia) said he opposes an effort to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to address same-sex marriage, rejecting concerns that the judiciary would impose the institution on the state.

"That's ridiculous," he said. He asserted that "we do know what the judiciary's going to do" because Pennsylvania judges have not in over 200 years sought to change the longstanding definition of marriage.

He also said that, were gay marriage enacted, no major social consequences would ensue.

Before Mr. Brubaker shelved his provision, Sen. Vince Fumo (D-Philadelphia) hoped to introduce language effectively ending no-fault divorce in Pennsylvania. Mr. Fumo's measure read: "No law permitting the dissolution of marital status shall be valid except in the case of willful and malicious desertion, cruel and barbarous treatment of a spouse, endangerment of the life or health of a spouse, a bigamous marriage or imposition of such indignities as to render a spouse's condition intolerable and life burdensome."

Fumo spokesman Gary Tuma told The Bulletin that his boss' intention was largely to expose putative hypocrisy among gay-marriage opponents who did not want to legislate against marital breakup, something that the twice-divorced Philadelphia legislator has called a bigger threat to marriage than homosexual unions.

Asked whether Mr. Fumo would actually like to see any changes to Pennsylvania law regarding the facility with which couples can get divorced, Mr. Tuma answered, "I don't know that he wants any."

Michael Geer, head of the Pennsylvania Family Institute which supports traditionally defined marriage, said that attempting to force a discussion of no-fault divorce would effectively kill chances of a marriage amendment's passage.

"There is not the political will in our general assembly to change those [divorce] laws," he said.