Three letters in today's Post-Gazette, two for gay rights and one for gay oppression. Still no letters in the Tribune-Review.
Proud papa Edward Walkowski of Brookline simply wants his lesbian daughter and her partner to have equal rights. Edward recognizes the true political agenda of the Amendment supporters:
The political leaders pushing this amendment are nothing but political opportunists and hypocrites -- political opportunists because, by taking advantage of fears, prejudices and ignorance, they would hope to create a wedge issue that would aid their own political aims, and hypocrites because if they were truly concerned with protecting marriage and the family, they would attempt to legislate against divorce and to legislate for pre-marriage testing to ensure that couples would be stable partners and parents.
Lorette Barone of Point Breeze makes another simple point, namely that gay marriage won't impact her marriage. Nor will it protect anyone else's marriage.
Kudos to Bruce Kraus ("Gay Marriage in Pennsylvania," April 27 Forum). I have no idea how exactly the anti-gay marriage amendment will "strengthen marriage" -- an institution that has been in decline everywhere without any help from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community and lots of help from educational, religious and legislative bodies.
I do know that GLBT people marrying will have no impact on my 45-year marriage. The adoption of the amendment will disenfranchise a host of my fellow citizens who -- constitutionally -- share all the rights and privileges that I enjoy... well, almost, but not quite because they're... you know.
On the other hand, Nancy Staible of Zelienople believes marriage is the answer. Nancy is an old friend of the letters page.
Contrary to the attitude shared by several of the senators hosting the hearing, I think the people of Pennsylvania do understand what marriage is, what it is not and why we need to protect this bedrock of our society. I would venture to say that every member of those listening to or offering testimony, whether supporting or opposing the amendment, was born as a result of the union of one man and one woman and understand the value of marriage.
That's probably not true. There's a range of possibilities. I speak hypothetically because I don't know who was there or the circumstances of their conception. Someone may have gay parents. Someone may be the result of artificial insemination. Another could have been conceived as a result of sexual assualt or incest. I'm guessing a few were born to teenagers who didn't understand the consequence of their actions. Nancy and her ilk rarely mention those circumstances. Getting married because you "have to" is not the same thing as entering a loving union with full intent and commitment.
The limited role of government in our representative republic is to establish and maintain laws that are determined to be best for the country and its people. Marriage over time has been shown to be the gold standard for raising children, socializing men and women, building a strong economy and providing for healthy, long lives.
Also, not true. Research has shown that two parent families have strengths for children, but that gay parenting is little different than heterosexual parenting. If anything, it is the constant barrage against the gay community that is hurting our children.
Just this week, we see a newlywed couple who beat the hell out of each other and bystanders on the day of their wedding. What economic contribution does that make? It drains resources because of the need for police and judicial intervention.
Staible deludes herself that marriage is some sort of magic bullet to cure social woes. So why doesn't she turn her attention to the aspects of existing marriages that aren't working so well? Why not help women who are being battered by their spouses have better supports have healthy, long lives? Why not strengthen safety net resources so financial hardships don't destroy marriages? Why not address healthcare so families aren't forced to remain unmarried so women and children can access publicly funded healthcare because their male partners' business doesn't offer a family plan? There are tons of things Nancy could do.
The Post-Gazette published City Councilman Bruce Kraus' recent testimony on SB 1250 which would embed a definition of marriage into the PA Constitution. All I can tell you is that this is a really great read. Here is my favorite excerpt:
With all the challenges that we, as a commonwealth, are facing -- deteriorating infrastructure; staggering health-care costs; municipalities crippled by the inability or unwillingness of legislators to ensure that nonprofits contribute toward ever escalating municipal service costs; rampant gun violence; and corruption in government -- certain Pennsylvania state legislators would like us to believe that defining marriage and outlawing civil union is our most pressing legislative priority.
In reality this is their mark of shame.
Legislating a ban on same-sex marriage or civil unions is homophobia, bigotry and sanctioned discrimination of a selected class of people. I would liken homophobia to racism, sexism and anti-Semitism because it seeks to dehumanize people and deny them their dignity, personhood and equal protection under the law. In the year 2008, would you dare to legislate to deny marriage or civil union based on race, creed, age or ethnicity?
This need not become a mark of shame, but rather a call to courage -- the courage to overcome fear and injustice. Choosing the right thing to do is not always popular or easy, but standing for what is right and true and just, especially when it is unpopular, is the true test of moral character.
Today I ask you, as members of the state General Assembly, with the power to end this discrimination before it can go any further, to not only vote against SB 1250, but to speak out against it and the intolerance, prejudice and discrimination it represents.
Bishop Zubik writes the opposing view. He's the Bride of Christ. Or something like that.
Well, he finally has something to say about attempts to amend the PA Constitution.
"If I were in the state legislature, I would oppose it, Obama said.
Obama's silence on the proposed amendment to the state's constitution has proven worrisome to local gay rights groups who have largely thrown their support behind Hillary Clinton and just two days before the primary he made his position clear.
"I'm not in favor of gay marriage but I certainly don't want to see a court suggesting that somehow we can't pass laws that say gays and lesbians aren't being discriminated against," Obama said.
So he would oppose it. Check. But what do the rest of the words mean? He doesn't want to see a court suggesting ... isn't that the rhetoric of those in favor of the amendment who fear the courts overturning current legislations outlawing gay marriage? Huh?
This doesn't make any sense. It sounds like more of the same chest-beating "I am Christian, hear me tolerate" crap. It makes me almost long for a refreshing dose of Darryl Metcalfe's "I don't like gay people" mantra.
Please, gay Obama supporters, tell me what this means for your family. And mine.
This is a good letter. When Obama starts his explanation on opposing gay marriage, he uses the phrase "I"m a Christian." Is he fueling the myth that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive? This taps into my deep concern that the modern politician is forced into Christians versus LGBTQ community position. Guess who loses? The Christo-flavored rhetoric of Obama gives me pause.
Although both you and Senator Clinton decline to support gay marriage per se, it is your statements on this issue that seem alienating, divisive, and uninformed and that subtly contribute to the persistence of one of this country?s worst forms of religious persecution and social bigotry. Even the possibility that you and your platform -- wittingly or unwittingly -- may contribute to the perpetuation of bigotry and prejudice in any way against anyone is, to our sensibilities, unthinkable.
<snip>
While you are careful to appear to uphold and defend the GLBT community?s basic safety and legal rights, in a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune story that referenced comments you made during your 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, you led off your objections to gay marriage with the statement ?I'm a Christian? [see below for full context of quote]. On its own as a part of your personal profile or in answer to a query about your personal beliefs, this statement is both appropriate and informative. But linked to your objections about gay marriage and by extension the gay lifestyle, it serves to entrench modern attitudes of religion-based bigotry and persecution and effectively implies that ?gay? and ?Christian? are mutually exclusive. This is not only wrong and uninformed but also flies in the face of the most basic Christian values and beliefs of unconditional love and acceptance.
<snip>
Mr. Obama, you have clearly stated your reluctance to allow your private religious beliefs to shape your public policy. This is wise in theory but difficult in practice, because while you are free to interpret your personal religious beliefs in any way you choose, as a talented orator you realize that words are powerful and can also crucially shape both public policy and public opinion. This letter is not an attempt to change your personal opinions or religious beliefs on this or any other issue, but it is an invitation for you to reexamine your spoken expressions and public statements toward a segment of Americans about whom you clearly evidence a lack of knowledge and experience. Can we be gay? Can we be Christian? Perhaps now, Mr. Obama, you may be a bit more aware of the possibilities and the answer that must include us all in your visionary new world: Yes, We Can.
For that to make any sense, check out O'Neill's column in which he tries to figure out how a marriage protection amendment works. Apparently, one of the most memorable bits of testimony:
One of the more imaginative arguments in favor of the amendment was made by Randy Lee, a law professor at the Widener University School of Law. A 50-year-old father of six, Mr. Lee likened the idea of equating gay unions with marriages to an unfair trade practice.
"You can't put a picture of corn on a can of peas and sell it as corn,'' he said.
Sue Frietsche of the Women's Law Project also mentioned that analogy to me. It you stick with the analogy, though, gay marriage makes more sense -- keep the peas with the peas and the corn with the corn. None of this succotash stuff to trick innocent children into eating their vegetables. Everyone knows kids sort mixed veggies out into little like minded piles anyway.
So what does it all mean? Well, since this is like my 19th post for the day (lots happening), I guess I'll Brian have the last word.
But there is something about the institution of marriage that people in love continue to value. That may be the only thing that unites everyone in this argument. If anyone can get past that irony, that's the good news.
Having read both the article in the Post-Gazette and the one in the Tribune-Review, I must say I came away with a sort of "it all came out equal in the end" impression -- namely, that it was a draw.
That's not what folks in the LGBTQ community are saying. Reports from various sources tell me that anti-amendment (the good guys) folks outnumbered pro-amendment (the bigots) folks by as much as 4:1. I guess the stickers proved useful after all and I shouldn't have made fun of them. Plus, there was cheering and boos unreported in the media.
Both newspapers start off with quotes from the christo-bigots. Here's the Trib:
"It advances a single purpose -- the preservation of Pennsylvania's marriage policy as understood throughout the existence of the Commonwealth -- by reaffirming the legal definition of marriage," said Deborah Hamilton of the coalition Pennsylvania for Marriage, reading a statement prepared by the Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation.
Now it is interesting to me that the paper makes a point that someone outside of Pennsylvania prepared the statement. Heck, if Deborah can't string a coherent statement together on paper, why let her talk?
The Trib does not quote any openly gay individuals or at least doesn't identify them as such. They also fail to quote any openly heterosexual individuals who fear for their marriages. So it sort of is a draw.
The Post-Gazette starts off with the Catholic flavor of bigotry
"I come to you today as a pastor, a pastor with a desire to testify on behalf of one of the oldest institutions of humanity -- marriage itself," Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh told an audience of more than 200 people in the Gold Room.
Interesting side note. While almost every gay man over the age of 50 that I know seems to have scoop on which priests and bishops are gay <they don't necessary corroborate each other>, no one wants to claim Zubik. They vehemently argue that he is heterosexual. That's odd.
Some gays are claiming that the PG bent over backward to be "fair and balanced" which could account for their failure to report on the turnout.
Here's my favorite part of the article:
City Councilman Bruce Kraus yesterday described such a qualification and the entire move to ban civil unions as a "mark of shame."
He implored members of the Judiciary Committee and the Legislature to stand against the constitutional amendment.
"This need not become your mark of shame, but rather your call to courage," he said. "The courage to overcome fear and injustice; to leave behind moral cowardice."
Our call to courage. And he didn't even have to send to Utah for help with that statement. I mean, that's a theme the LGBTQ community should pounce upon.
Speaking of courage, I hear that State Senator Jay Costa was the one asking tough questions of those in support of the amendment. Was Fontana there? Did he ask questions? I'm concerned given his staff comments about receiving a lof of critical calls.
Did you call you Senator? It is certainly not too late. Consider this a call to courage. Speak out now while someone is still listening to your voice. Outnumbering them 4:1 in socially conservative Pittsburgh -- where our 28 year old Mayor is anti-civil union for God's sake -- that's big news.
Apparently, Senator Jane Orie left when the cameras left. So she wants the film clips, but can't even bother to hear out what the others have to say? Classy.
First, the hearing. If you cannot attend, you can submit written testimony. This comes from Sue Frietsche, Pittsburgh's Women's Law Project go-to-woman. I am still trying to determine if you can email it. Ledcat and I are working on a joint letter.
It can be in letter form, addressed to Senator Greenleaf at: Senate Judiciary Committee, Main Capitol Building, Harrisburg PA 17120, and it should be entitled, "Testimony of [your name] on Senate Bill 1250".
So, that's one critical piece of information and just proves that it is sometimes worth kicking up the dirt to find the flowers. Thus, if you cannot attend, you have no reason not to let your voice be heard on this important issue. It doesn't have to be profound or anything like that. Just write.
Second, I've mentioned my concerns about the "information dissemination" process around this legislation. I shared my concerns with local and statewide LGBT advocacy folks. Most agree that a dearth of resources are part of the problem. Stacey Sobel of Equality Advocates gave me a lot of insight into the process. I suspect, like many situations, it boils down to communication. The fact that I received at least 13 copies of the hearing notice (including a few today) does not offset the fact that it took four days to get the information in the first place. Creating another group or setting up another website is not the answer. We have to find a better way for advocacy groups to get the word out here in Pittsburgh -- it is *our* responsibility to make it happen.
Finally, I hope you caught the letters to the editor in today's Post-Gazette. One is from a long (very long) time friend of mine, Keith Bajura. His optimism is buoying amidst all this hearing hoopla:
Furthermore, marriage equality is going to happen. With our society becoming ever more accepting that homosexuality is a normal human trait such as having green eyes or being left-handed, the next generation will struggle even less with the issue than we do today. In fact, five countries of the world currently allow same-sex marriage.
Maybe we can get back to basics and remember that this country was founded on the equality of all people. It is only constitutional and only American that we offer marriage to all people -- gay or straight.
Then there is Marilyn Reed of Pine (where is Pine?) who hasn't been paying attention to the facts. She claims that this amendment won't impact domestic partner benefits. Then she trots out the worn out "Let the People decide!" argument. Sigh.
Your paper often seems to pride itself on its support of freedom of speech. The latest polling indicates that even those who don't completely support the majority who define marriage as the union only of man and woman still want the people to have the final say!
That didn't work out so well for the people in the 2000 election, did it Marilyn? This whole line of thought makes civil rights something that can be bestowed upon certain groups on the whim of the majority. Isn't that a scary world, Marilyn? There was a time, Marilyn, when the voters didn't think that you - a woman - had the right to vote. Or to get an education so as to be able to write letters to the editor. Was it okay for those people to make that series of decisions? Hmmm ...
Still no letters in the Tribune Review. What is the deal?
Please write your testimony. Let the Senators on the Appropriations Committee hear from you. It does make a difference.
Word trickled out Sunday about the upcoming Pgh hearing on SB 1250 which would amend the constitution of PA to permanently ban gay marriage. And other stuff, too. But no one on the right is talking about the negative backlash for their families beyond the voo doo protection from homo marriage.
I have had a dozen email messages today from various groups trying to muster the troops for Thursday. The odds are not good -- the hearing is in the middle of the day, we have had four days notice and, frankly, our side is not well-organized. I know that might make me a traitor to the cause to admit that publicly, but someone has to cry wolf. Because we seemed a lot more organized last time and barely won that round. This hearing was scheduled on 4/3 and Pittsburgh's queer community first heard about it on 4/6. We lost three, almost four, days of prep time and no one seems to have a good answer to that.
You know *they* are organized. And well-funded. And will be there in full force on Thursday.
I also know that local bloggers seem very well-organized to tackle this hearing. No one has to convince them that it is newsworthy which means thousands of blog readers are going to get some insight beyond a 30 second sound-bite on KDKA. I say work with the bloggers.
Look at Pam's House Blend. It is one of the largest sources of LGBT information, period. We could build on that energy here in Pgh AND tap into the terrific support of our heterosexual blogging allies, who frankly outnumber the gay bloggers. Far outnumber.
If you can be there on Thursday, it will make a huge difference. Every gay ally counts. Don't let parking or crowds or rush hour traffic deter you. You can be damn skippy sure it won't keep the Cranberry home-schooling Christo-bigot housewives from loading up the SUVs and rolling into town to defend their marriages.
Our folks are doing their best with really limited resources. Things need to change and each of us has to step up to be part of that change. My best suggestion is to join Steel City Stonewall Democrats. They broke the news about the hearing before any other local source. In some cases, it took 24 hours for other groups to catch up. Co-chair Kris Rust assures me they are expanding scope to work on issues, not just campaigns. Go to this hearing. Wear your sticker and be counted. Then go home and join Steel City. Stop by their booth at PrideFest. Read up on their slate. See how their endorsed candidates for state offices vote on this issue.
And, hey, gay groups -- use the bloggers. Not just me, for Pete's sake. 18 bloggers participated in Blog for Equality. They are paying attention and you just need to send them an email to start a dialogue, potentially reaching thousands of readers.
Courtesy of Steel City Stonewall Democrats comes this news.
Value All Families - Keep Discrimination out of Our State Constitution!
Please come to the public hearing in Pittsburgh on Thursday, April 10th and tell Pennsylvania Senate Members to vote NO on Senate Bill 1250.
Senate Bill 1250 is a Constitutional Amendment which would ban gay marriage AND civil unions in Pennsylvania. On Thursday, April 10th there will be a public hearing in Pittsburgh to discuss the impact this amendment would have on the Commonwealth. In past hearings, supporters of this discriminatory bill have been extremely active and vocal. It is crucial that we outnumber them this time around. We urgently need people to come to the hearing so senators know that people from the Pittsburgh area don't want our General Assembly to legislate hate.
Date and time: Thursday, April 10th, 2:00 pm
Location: Allegheny County Courthouse, Gold Room 437 Grant St., Downtown Pittsburgh Corner of Grant and Forbes
*** We will have lapel stickers at the hearing. Please be sure to pick one up to show your opposition to the marriage amendment***
Call (412) 681-7736 for more information.
Your faithful correspondent, alas, cannot attend as I have work commitments that cannot be missed. So I hope you will attend and speak your mind.
It is frustrating to only receive four days notice (and some change, I guess) for a middle of the day hearing. 3/4 of my work commitments are flexible enough to accomodate these sort of things, but not all of them. I guess that is how things go. It is particularly frustrating, though, in this case as lower income LGBT (and straight) families will be hit very hard by this type of discrimination and are least likely to be able to just drop everything at work for a 2 PM meeting.
