From the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia...

April 28, 2006

Constitutional Amendment Set to Run in PA House

The House of Representatives is in session [the week of May1]and the bill is posted on the voting calendar. This means that a vote can occur at any time. The House Appropriations Committee voted the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" out of Committee on April 24th. This was the next procedural step to running the bill, HB 2381, on the House floor. We have heard from legislators that both supporters and opponents to the amendment have been contacting them in unprecedented numbers. It is critical that constituents continue to contact them and ask them to oppose the amendment. If you have not talked to your Representative recently, please do it now! Please ask your friends and family in Pennsylvania to contact their legislator. If you don't know who your state Representative is, go here.

As a member of the female species and a feminist I have been paying attention to the furor in Mt. Lebanon. I have some friends who live in Mt. Lebanon and my grandfather lived there for many years. It's a nice place. Lately it has also provided a lesson in good ole fashion hypocrisy, one of my favorite subjects.

It's a favorite topic because I always have to laugh at how people can condemn and bash gay people for supposedly being morally bankrupt. And then turn around and do the same thing (or worse) they condemn others for doing.

Mt. Lebanon--white, rich, Christian and right-wing republican has a group of boys (sorry, they don't qualify as young men) rating the girls of their school on such wonderful areas as their breasts, buttocks and whether they perform oral sex and do drugs. A lovely, lovely way to think about their female peers. I'm sure the "women" at Concerned Women for America are very proud. Anyway, to illustrate my point, I can't think of a better way to do it then the following quote--published in today's Post Gazette from Attorney William H. Difenderfer, who represents one of the boys involved in making the list:

He added, "I'm very fearful with this publicity that the administration will go over the top with these boys. They're very good kids. I know them well. They all are college-bound. They all have very constructive lives ahead of them. ... These kids are all decent kids. My client is extremely remorseful."

Here is what these "decent kids" were talking about in their list of "Top 25" females:

The list includes grades for girls' faces, breasts and buttocks and talks about drug use, oral sex, sexually transmitted disease and weight.

So, these are what the right-wing republicans of Mt. Lebon consider to be "decent kids?" Well, it makes me feel better that they are college-bound and have constructive lives ahead of them--doing what? Writing for Hustler Magazine? Playing lacrosse for Duke? Ohhh, low blow!!

These are the same, smug people who, with their Bibles in hand, will vote to ban gay marriage so those deviants don't harm our society! 

See, ain't hypocrisy grand? And I will say this. I will pit all of my gay friends (and most of gay society--LOL) against these "decent boys" any day of the week.

 

---

U.S. Census 2000 estimates there are roughly 240,000 Pennsylvania families ? about 5 percent of the state?s 4.8 million households ? made up of unmarried couples. Many of these were grandfathered in as common-law marriages before a new state law abolished this marital arrangement last year. Among them are widowed seniors who never formalized their marital bonds, and who might have no redress if the proposed amendment negates every form of marital arrangement but traditional matrimony.

 

Seniors? ?property, pension and Social Security are possibly at risk because they?re survivor benefits,? explains Karen Buck, executive director of the Philadelphia-based SeniorLAW Center, a statewide advocacy group that objects to the amendment

---

 

We can only try to convince the moderate Republicans that this bill is going to negatively many of their constituents.  And protect no one's marriage.

---

I know the homophobes don?t care about whether gays and lesbians have the same rights as the rest of us. Discrimination against anyone different is a grand American tradition. But here?s what they should try to understand: There?s nothing to ?protect.? Legal gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on hetero marriage.

 

You still don?t have to mix with the homos. You can still look down your noses at them ?cause ?it just ain?t natural.? (?Course there are millions of them on the earth, you know. God sure must have screwed up a bunch of times.)

---

Stay tuned for an update on the marriage amendment passage through the Pennsylvania Republican Caucus.

Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents is pleased to welcome our newest
correspondent Shelly. We've known Shelly for several years -- she is very
active in the local LGBT community. Her writing, you will find, is
articulate, insightful and from a slightly different perspective than Ledcat
and me.

Three's Company, too!

Welcome aboard Shelly!

Sue

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wrote an op-ed piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that defended the proposed amendment to the PA Constitution regarding gay marriage. His piece was full of fear-mongering and inaccuracies that are exposed in this article.   more »

 

From the PA-GALA website, an update on the PA marriage protection amendment ...

The Anti-Marriage Amendment (HB 2381) is on the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives Agenda for the week of Monday, April 24th!  A vote on the Amendment could be held anytime this week!

PA-GALA needs you to contact your State Representative and ask him or her to oppose the Anti-Marriage Amendment. Ask your legislators to protect all Pennsylvania families and not harm some by writing discrimination into Pennsylvania's constitution.

Visit the PA-GALA website for information on how to contact your State rep.

Local gay advocate Dana Elmendorf asks Pennsylvania to consider why Darryl Metcalfe and his band of merry men are rushing the marriage protection amendment to the House floor?  This was in the PG.

---

UPDATE  11:27 AM:  And this was in Friday's Tribune Review.  Good job Dana!

By my count, the Post-Gazette has published 11 letters to the editor on the topic of the anti-gay marriage amendment making its way through the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  Prior to these letters, the PG featured two op-ed pieces on the same topic.  The pro-amendment position came from sponsor, Darryl Metcalfe.  The anti-amendment position came from the great Dan Frankel. 

Here's the interesting part .... out of the 11 people who took the time to write a letter to the editor, 10 of them are opposed to the amendment.  Their reasons vary, but all ten clearly do not see this issue at the top of the priority list for Pennsylvania's elected officials.  The lone supporter of the amendment is a representative of Concerned Women for America. <Click on the category Marriage on the left hand menu for links to all 11 letters>

There have been no letters in the Tribune Review. 

So my next question is whether Pennsylvania's legislators are reading the Post-Gazette.  The consensus has been that the pols are supporting this amendment to galvanize support among their conservative base.  A base that is usually quite vocal about anything homorelated.  A base that usually picks up a pen and lets the world know how they feel about gay marriage. 

But in this case, one of those persons picked up a pen.  I asked the PG letters editor to her face if the 10-1 ratio was reflective of the actual letters received and she answered in the affirmative. 

10-1 readers of the largest newspaper in Western Pennsylvania.  And no reader of the second largest. 

Are you paying attention Republican Caucus?  

Click here to read what PG letter writers said in today's edition.  Including the luminous Carol Untch.

Today, Heather Chirdon of Shaler takes Concerned Women for America to task for their support of the marriage amendment. 

---

The notion of bringing the gay marriage amendment to a referendum vote is laughable. As a woman I feel it is my duty to remind her that the vote she would like to use is the one we gained only in 1920. How can we take a basic civil liberty and use it to bludgeon those of another citizen?

---

The Concerned Women seemed to be unduly worried that gay marriage will cause a higher injury rate among married heterosexual couples.  And continues the wingers ridiculous inability articulate HOW gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. 

Heather -- thank you for stepping up!    You rock!

Sue

Apparently, I spoke too soon.   Today's Post-Gazette includes a letter to the editor from Nancy Staible of Zelienople, Pennsylvania Director of Concerned Women for America.  Ms. Staible rambles on about children needing two parents and the fact that married couples are wealthier and less prone to injury.  After reading her letter 4 or 5 times, I still don't understand why a constitutional amendment will strengthen marriage.  If the goal is wealth and children, perhaps the women should be more concerned about creating jobs, improving healthcare, reforming taxes and maybe a bit of attention for daycare and education services. 

On the bright side, Jason Feldstein of Squirrel Hill distinguishes civil from sacramental marriage. "If we value freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, then the answer is clear; if you have a problem with same-sex marriages, join a church that refuses to perform them. Even stand in the street and preach about the evils of homosexuality, if you like -- that's your constitutional right. But keep your paws off other people's civil liberties."

Kudos to Mr. Feldstein for actually making a rational argument.