You gotta love Mike Seate, columnist for the Tribune-Review.  No matter how carefully he crafts his essentially pro-homo thoughts, he always gets a little jab in there -- just enough to remind us that he is a heterosexual middle class male after all.  For the most part, they are benign and usually amusing.  But I digress ...

Yesterday, Seate took a stab at the gay marriage amendmen furor.  His conclusion?  Gay marriage happens everywhere but the courts and pretty soon state governments will recognize that. 

And that homosexuals are scapegoats right now. 

A point that the wise and wondrous Post-Gazette editorial board glossed over in their passive missive yesterday.

It's an interesting coincidence that as we pass 39 years of legally sanctioned interracial marriage, the Pennsylvania state legislature has been busy approving an amendment that would ban gay marriage.

From Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, there are gay and lesbian couples who've adopted children, cohabited like legally married couples and even enjoyed health benefits from progressive employers. They continue living their lives as married couples even while our lawmakers play to bigoted voters by passing meaningless anti-gay marriage laws.

And he connects gay civil rights with the larger struggle for civil rights (here's the little sparky jab):

Though several lawmakers throughout the union staged public tantrums about having to legalize interracial marriages back in 1967, their fears of a ruined, lawless society never materialized. By the 1990 U.S. Census, one in 33 Americans identified themselves as being of mixed race heritage. By 1995, that number had risen to one in 26.

Better yet, interracial marriage has produced people as stunningly beautiful as Paula Abdul and Shakira, which even the most ardent segregationist has to agree is a positive development.

Ah, Mike.  Your not so bad for a breeder yourself.

From Monday's Post-Gazette comes this rather unimpressive denouncement of the still breathing Pennsylvania legislation on gay marriage (amend the constitution, hurt the homos and the heteros, you remember).

Today is the day we are supposed to see some action in the Senate on the revised bill which would still make gay marriage unconstitutional, but not civil unions.  This bill should reach the floor as early as today.  If it passes, it has to return to the House for passage in its amended form.  The homo-haters and hate-panderers are up in arms at the watered down language of the legislation so what will happen is anyone's guess.

The only solace is that is all has to happen by the end of next week or it goes kapoot (how do you spell kapoot by the way?). 

I'm glad the PG opposes the amendment.  And I'm glad they point out how this could hurt many heterosexual couples b/c frankly that's our best shot at avoiding passage.  Hurting homsexual families doesn't seem to be a concern for our homegrown Democrats so we need to pull out all the possible cards. 

But this editorial reads like a carefully crafted compromise rather than a thoughtful articulation:

This whole amendment is objectionable. That the civil union language was in there at the start proves the lie at the heart of its supporters' claims: This isn't about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage (if it were, it would ban divorce, the real culprit). It is about writing a note of prejudice into the state constitution.

Objectionable?  A note of prejudice?  Was Tony Norman off this day -- who the heck uses phrases like "note of prejudice" over an amendment that would overtly constitutionalize second class status for an entire group of people?  About the violation of our civil rights?  About the fact that we've been here before and it wasn't so good that time around? 

The PG wimped out on this issue.  You'll note they stopped printing letters to the editor on this issue.  Perhaps readers are getting bored?  But isn't that the damn point ---

There's  much to blog about today, but I'll start with PrideFest which was really nice this year.  Organizers estimate that 6,500 people attended.  I can tell you it was very crowded and there were more vendors than ever before.

 This is the first year I've seen the parade from the beginning where we drove to catch the opening remarks of Governor Ed Rendell.  His comments about legislative attacks on homosexuality and wingnuts using our identitites to polarize and divide the Commonwealth were very well received.  And, as promised, he did say "Ladies, Start Your Engines" to the dykes on bikes.  Which I must admit was pretty cool. 

He also openly endorsed gay marriage.  Openly.  Not second-class citizenship.  Not separate, but equal.  Not telling us to go make the environment safer for him to speak out on our behalf. 

The parade was larger than ever and filled with happy homo-lovin' people.  I heard from others that Councilwoman Tonya Payne marched in the parde which makes her the coolest City Councilperson going.  The others showed up at the festival, but we think that there's something about being in the parade -- about actively marching for community pride ---- that distinguishes our supporters from those who just talk to us.  

We then drove down to the festival on the North Shore (my previously broken foot cannot handle two marches in two days).  The festival was great.  We arrived in time for the opening comments and to hear the political guests:  our community's greatest champion -- State Representative Dan Frankel; City Councilman Bill Peduto, Doug Shields and Jim Motznik; Allegheny County's Valerie McDonald and Councilman  Rich Fitzgerald.  Frankel was eloquent and ferocious as always.  Valerie spoke movingly about her family's African-American pride and made wonderful connections between the civil rights struggles of all minorities.  Motznik told George Bush to kiss his ass which drew a mighty response.  Shields and Peduto lived up to expectations with their enthusiastic support.  And it was great to see a County Councilman there.  I don't know much about Rich Fitzgerald, but my Councilwoman wasn't there so I'm gonna look him up.

All these fine and lovely people showed up to support our celebration, the second largest gathering of the LGBT community in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  What's striking is who was NOT there, namely three specific people:  Bob Casey, Dan Onorato and Bob O'Connor.  

I heard it everywhere yesterday.  How come Bob Casey didn't show up?

Bob Casey blew it.  He is under fire for being too moderate and there are many people in the LGBT community who view his support with skepticism and dismay.  There are many people who don't plan to vote at all.  He didn't attend the recent national gay democrats convention and he didn't show up for this.  So in our opinion this was a perfect opportunity for him to reach out to the everyday homosexuals, not just those who can afford $100 plate HRC dinners.   This was his chance to show up that he values and respects our families, our contributions, our lives.  But he didn't show up.  Sending interns with stickers doesn't cut it. 

Even the local Democrat top dogs didn't bother to show up.  Both Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato and City of Pittsburgh Mayor Bob O'Connor had committed to attend and speak with the crowd.  Both blew us off.  At the very least it would have made the absence of the Democratic nominee for Senator in the race against our greatest foe a bit more palatable if the local boys had come in his stead. 

What the hell is that about?  Does our community lack the political muscle to turn out these guys? I fully expect to get a Rovian spin from the Steel-City folks who on KDKA radio openly approved of Howard Dean's 700 Club outreach, but there's very little you can do to convince me that NONE of these guys could show up.

Who else wasn't there? 

State Senator Wayne Fontana in whose district this was held and whose staff hasn't  acknowledged my correspondence asking if he would attend. 

US Congressman Mike Doyle.

Any Allegheny County Democrats running for office.  The only candidate who made this a priority was running for office in Butler County (I missed his name but I'll get it and post it b/c he deserves the props).  The list goes on of course. 

Everyone will have a good reason to offer, but I suspect if it were an event put on by a union, senior citizens, African-Americans or other groups they would have found a way to be there.  Laura summed it up very well "They don't respect us enough to show up."

I wonder if they respect our votes and our financial support?

As for media coverage, I was disappointed with KDKA's typical exploitive coverage.  On the 11 o'clock news, they covered the Epilepsy Run right before us and the camera showed a wide range of people in the race:  adults, families, people with strollers, dogs, wheelchairs, scooters, couples, singles, friends, etc.  When it came to PrideFest, they showed two shots of anyone who wasn't a drag queen and one shot of Governor Rendell.  The text was fine, but it was obvious that the KDKA news team puts about as much effort as FOX into fair and balanced coverage of the LGBT community. 

On the other hand, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette got it REALLY right this year.  Front page of the region section with a very well-done article contextualizing PrideFest with the marriage debate.  They even worked in "Ladies start your engines."

Wearing "Just married in Canada" T-shirts and identical gold wedding rings, Maria and Beth Kramer, of Ross, were on a motorcycle at the start of the gay community's Pride March, which Gov. Ed Rendell kicked off Downtown yesterday with "Ladies, start your engines!"

A few minutes earlier, the governor had brought the couple, who married in Stratford, Ontario, in April, on stage.

"Some day I hope that shirt says 'Just married in Pennsylvania,' " he said, to a roar of approval from the crowd.

The Tribune-Review had nothing.  Perhaps our quasi-buddy and Trib columnist Mike Seate will weigh in this week.  I didn't see the news on WTAE or WPXI, but there's nothing on their websites under local news. 

We'll weigh in on specific aspects of Pride over the coming week.  I need an entire post for the Dyke March itself.  And I want to revisit the queer v gay issue.

Let us know what you think.

Michael Toepp of Dormont puts it this way:

Wipe away all the rhetoric and propaganda, and all you have left is discrimination based on fear and prejudice. There is no danger to the family, there is no threat to our children. There is simply hatred and fear. And a use of language geared to incite that fear.

Stanley M. Stein of Elizabeth Township takes a different approach:

The forces of hate, bigotry and intolerance are again afoot in the land. Only this time the victims are gay people instead of people of color. But the rhetoric and hypocrisy are pretty much the same. Like hate-mongering white ministers shamelessly quoted the Bible to justify slavery and racial segregation, President Bush and the mullahs of the fundamentalist Christian right wing do the same to justify their own form of intolerance.

Stanley doesn't note that his very own state rep, David Levdansky is one of those who puts his own political career ahead of standing up to bigotry and intolerance.  Mr. Levdansky may or may not harbor homophobic feelings in his heart, but his homophobic actions --- his willingness to let fear and hatred fuel his career --- speak volumes about the values he does hold dear. 

One has to wonder how many meals homobigots must forgoe to win votes and influence legislators?  Three?  Six? 

It seems the AFA of PA is peeved with the PA Senate Judiciacy Committee, specifically Senator Jane Earll of Erie for weakening the Marriage Protection Amendment when they stripped the anti-civil union language.  Chief scribe and bigot Diane Gramley sent me this message:

Senator Jane Earll of Erie offered the amendment stripping the strong language of H.B. 2381.  Yesterday the AFA of PA delivered over 800 letters from her constituents in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.  She will now have to face those constituents.

 

?Pennsylvanians understand the issue better than their Senators give them credit.  They understand that civil unions must be addressed or traditional marriage will be weakened because homosexual activists will continue pushing for same-sex marriage.  Even homosexual activists recognize civil unions will be used as a stepping stone to legalize same-sex marriage, continued Gramley.

If Senator Earll stood up to 800 Erians, what does that say about the 20 SW PA Democrats who kowtowed to hatred and prejudice?  Exactly ...

?If the Senate is not willing to deal with the issue of marriage in its entirety ? same-sex marriage and civil unions ? then they send the clear message to their constituents that they are not willing to take the tough stand necessary to protect one man one woman marriage,? Gramley concluded.

Diane, honey, the members of the Pennsylvania legislature are no more going to take a tough stance on ANY issue than they are going to vote to reduce their size.  The weenie Democrats in Southwestern PA didn't stand up FOR your little gaybashfest of a bill; they stood up AGAINST early retirement. 

Apparently, the AFA of PA was on to something ... the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send the amendment to the full Senate for a vote.  BUT they removed language in the bill prohibiting civil unions and domestic partnerships.  (365gay.com)

So what does this mean to the average homo?  Well, the bill that passes the Senate has to be the same version as passed the House.  So if this version passes, it has to go back to the House for another vote.  Or it has to be amended on the floor of the Senate before passing.  Either way, it all has to happen before the end of the session on June 30.

So what should you do?  Pittsburgh's own Steel-City Stonewall Democrats suggest you continue writing letters to the editor and contacting your Senator to ask why they aren't focusing on more pressing issues.   They offer this bit of comfort:

The good news is that our opposition is also now fighting the senate version of the amendment, dissatisfied that it now allows civil unions.

The PG contained three letters to the editor all in support of gay marriage and clearly opposed to amending either the state or federal constitutions.

Wilma Hutchings of Aspinwall writes, "Now the fools need to pass a no-divorce law. Divorce is much more devastating to the family than gays getting married."

Joseph Kowalski of North Huntington writes, "Constitutions, state and federal, should be used to expand on human rights, not to limit the rights of an entire segment of the population. Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are nothing more than a political diversionary tactic to keep voters from focusing on the very real problems facing Pennsylvania and this nation."

Finally, Roy Frye resident of Squirrel Hill and registered Republican writes," As a registered Republican I want to congratulate Sen. Arlen Specter for voting against the federal amendment intended to ban gay marriage.  This measure would have only fomented division and resentment between fellow American citizens. Since this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, we should be brave enough to allow our fellow citizens who are a little bit different from us to be free in their personal pursuit of happiness. "

Columnist Sally Kalson takes a stab at understanding Metcalfe's rational, but can only conclude that he and his merry band of zealots don't know any homos:

There's only one way social conservatives could believe the things Mr. Metcalfe said about gay families: They don't know any, or don't realize they do. They've never been to their homes, watched them interact with their children over meals, schoolwork or upset stomachs, gone with them to worship. In that vacuum, they've invented cardboard characters who don't share love and commitment, don't need health coverage, joint custody, power of attorney or inheritance rights that others take for granted.

Perhaps some gay parents should invite Mr. Metcalfe over to see if their families are really so different from his own. It won't change his convictions, but it could break down some of his preconceptions.

She also does a nice dissection of that fact that 20 Democrats from Southwestern Pennsylvania voted in support of the Amendment. 

20 House Democrats from the Pittsburgh area voted for this redundant, mean-spirited amendment. Of course it's a cynical ploy to distract voters from the lawmakers' abysmal record. But it works because it taps a visceral fear that gay people have gained too much ground and must be slapped back into the margins. Then God-fearing "normal" people can go back to pretending they don't exist.

God bless her, Sally may be onto something.  But guess what --- the homos aren't going to go quietly into the margins this time.  No matter how hard Catherine Specter tries to drag up all back into the 1950's, it ain't gonna happen.

Three letters today. All opposed to the amendment. 

It is unbelievable that the only trump card the Republicans have is to try to scare people into believing that gay unions will somehow destroy the institution of marriage. The Republicans have no solutions or new ideas except tax breaks for the wealthy and scaring people who they hope will vote for them in November.

Kathy Brennan, Squirrel Hill

Shame on the Pennsylvania Legislature and President Bush for wasting our time and money on an issue that is none of their business

Amy Kellman, Oakland

What is needed is an amendment banning divorce. Of course, the homicide, abuse, adultery and suicide rates will skyrocket, but you can't have everything. Most important, the "sanctity" of marriage will be preserved.

Gerry Walkowski, Brookline

Nothing in the Tribune-Review or its underlings.  Its important to keep this up as the Senate Judiciary Committee considers the Senate bill on Tuesday.  We want them to hold hearings on the bill; its proponents will want a straight up or down vote because there's only so much of the democratic process necessary when you are pushing through a hate amendment.

Send your own message to the Post-Gazette. 

h/t Page One Q

Click here for video ....

Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families?

Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink)

Bennett: They?re sons and they?re daughters..

Stewart: So that?s where the buck stops, that?s the gay ceiling.

Bennett Look, it?s a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart:I disagree, I think it?s a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

According to the Post-Gazette, our esteemed legislators have had the bright idea of fast-tracking the marriage protection amendment through the Senate. 

House Bill 2381, which would amend the state constitution to limit marriage to between one man and one woman, is set for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning. The bill was approved by the full House this week by a 2 to 1 margin.

If approved by the Judiciary Committee Tuesday, as several senators expect, it could be voted on by the full Senate as soon as June 19, Senate Republican Whip Jeffrey Piccola of Dauphin County said yesterday.

He and another supporter, Sen. Bob Regola, R-Hempfield, said they expect the bill to get full Senate approval on June 19 or soon thereafter -- definitely before the Senate recesses for the summer in late June or early July.

Keep that in mind as you toodle off on your summer vacation over rutted state highways; as your grandmother tries to stretch her social security to pay for all her prescriptions;  as your son looks for a job or faces moving your grandkids out of state; as your parents struggle to pay their property taxes and keep the home they worked a lifetime to own. 

I'll be here still not married to my partner.  Don't you feel your interests are well protected?

Here's a message from LGBT political organizer Dana Elmendorf:

The amendment will now go to the Senate for a vote as SB1084 by the end of June before the legislators go home for summer vacations. From there, both bodies will need to vote on it again in the next session - if they vote yes, it will end up on the ballot and serve as a divisive issue in 2008. Even though proponents of the amendment succeeded at this step in terms of numbers, when we look at the amount of thoughtful discourse that has been happening around the issue of fairness and equality and compare our efforts with even ten years ago, we feel we are involved in an historic effort.

 

PLease send a letter to or call your STATE Senator in the next week urging them to vote against SB1084.  You can easily do this by visiting www.center4civilrights.org . If you prefer not to get on a mailing list, you can go to www.vote-smart.org to find out who your STATE Senator is and call them directly with a quick message.

 

While I was initially saddened by the result of Tuesday night's vote, I am now more grateful than ever to have friends and allies like yourself willing to step forward for the people you love.

 

Feel free to forward this info along..................Dana Elmendorf