Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Stage Set for Vote on Gay Marriage Ban

In Capitol, more than 200 foes rally against amendment after its approval by Senate panel

Tuesday, May 06, 2008
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG -- Minutes after a Senate committee approved a bill to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage yesterday, Democratic legislators from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia vociferously attacked the proposal, calling it "disgraceful, morally wrong and unnecessary."

Senate Bill 1250, which is meant to bolster the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which already prohibits same-sex marriage, "is disheartening and discriminatory," said Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park.

"It's marriage mischief -- an attempt to enshrine bigotry in the state constitution," he told an angry crowd of 200 protesters gathered in the Capitol rotunda.

"Politicians always want to get into your wallet, but now many politicians, some Democrats as well as Republicans, want to get into your bedroom."

Other opponents of the constitutional amendment included Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, and Democratic Sens. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia and Connie Williams of Delaware County.

"When the basic rights of any group are threatened, then no one's rights are safe," said Mr. Fumo, amid echoing chants of "Stop this bill! Stop this bill!"

Read the rest of this article at it's origin with the provided link above.

"If the good people in the kindness of their hearts see it fot to leave me in the background, I am too familiar with disappointment to be chagrin." ~Abraham Lincoln

People of Pennsilvania, you have an opportunity to show your love for your neighbor here, don't let youselves down.


Paul Jamieson said...

all the old slogans again

all the lies about people being called bigots and discriminatory

all the bs that makes up the gay marriage agenda

instead of the celebrating the freedoms of this country and the diversity of its peoples

let the people vote

John said...

Nothing is more dangerous to Liberty than direct democracy.

Ryan Charisma said...

Oh good Lord,

don't people get it?

rights are NOT to be voted on.

end of discussion.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Indeed, if rights can be voted away then they are not exactly rights, are they?

John said...

For those who claim they want to defend marriage, state Rep. Vincent Fumo can show you how do it:

"One of the amendments was by Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia, who proposed that Pennsylvania outlaw most divorces. His amendment would “outlaw the dissolution of most marriages in Pennsylvania,” he said in a news release. That would mean there would be few legal ways for the divorce of a married couple, a man and a woman."

Naturally, the bigots don't want THAT, and so the bill is tabled.


Paul Jamieson said...

marriage is not a right

end of story

let the people vote

John said...

Marriage IS a fundamental right.

So fundamental that even prisoners MUST be allowed to marry:

“Marriage and the decision to enter into a marital relationship involve fundamental human rights,...The Missouri Division of Corrections’ inmate marriage rule unconstitutionally infringes upon plaintiffs’ right to marriage because it is far more restrictive than is either reasonable or essential for the protection of any state security interest or any other legitimate interest, such as rehabilitation of inmates.”

Turner v. Safley

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Paul, the closest you will ever get to seeing a vote here in Massachusetts was last year on June 14th. The vote was 151 to 45 against banning GLBT from marrying whom they choose.

I still wonder what it is that makes people want to ban equality. What harm do you perceive from this union? Have you felt any from mine since I got married?

Paul Jamieson said...

there need be no harm Hosty - just common sense prevailing

Too much confusion for children like the courts have stated

Keep traditional family etc etc

John said...

I agree 100% that we should keep the traditional family. The traditional family has served a substantial minority of people for a very long time.

And it will continue to do so.

But this is not a zero-sum game. No harm befalls any traditional family, if other family types are recognized by the government. Notice I say recognized, because non-traditional families have always been and will always be among us.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I will be glad to continue the 4 year tradition of marriage equality. ;)

Paul Jamieson said...

Marriage is NOT a right

The real travesty is trying to intimidate or sue people in order to stop the democratic process

John said...

I think you know what a right is. Let me check my copy of the Constitution.

Oh yeah, there it. Amenment 9.

Paul Jamieson said...

marriage is not a right

I don't care how many ways you try to slice it John

is not and never will be a right

John said...

It is clear then, they you do not know what a right is, and that speaks to your democratic bias.

This is America, and in America everything is a right unless the government specifically, in its founding document, is granted power to legislate otherwise.

This why you have the right to send your children to a private school, even though (in Oregon) the people democratically and overwhelming voted otherwise.

You have the right to refuse to allow your children to visit their grandparents, even though (in Washington) the people democratically and overwhelming voted otherwise.

A woman has the right to use birth control even though (in Connecticut) the people democratically and overwhelming voted otherwise.

I can think of many more example where the presumption of liberty has trumped democracy.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

The troubles marriage has seen have all been perpetrated by heterosexual people. Marriage equality has been granted to only one state, and even that state has had it for only 4 years. We have hardly had an opportunity in that time to be held accountable for the trend in divorce, marriage woe, and single parents that our opposition has tried to claim in the past.

Nope, that is their bed to lay in.

All GLBT people want is equality. We want to be able to marry the person we love and have all the rights and responsibilities that go with it.

Where the heterosexual community has treated this institution with such disregard I find it hypocritical to say that our equality will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Anne said...

Both sides are correct. Marriage is indeed a right, and everyone should -- and does -- have equal access to it. Want to get married? Be of legal age, find someone else of legal age who is willing, not too closely related to you by blood, and of the opposite sex, and boom! you are there. What's that you say? You don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex? Fine, then, don't. No one has a gun to your head. A gay relationship may or may not confer happiness upon its individual participants, but it serves no useful purpose to society as a whole that is in any way comparable to marriage. There is therefore no basis for legal recognition of such relationships.

John said...

"..it serves no useful purpose to society as a whole that is in any way comparable to marriage. "

That is irrelevant.

It (marriage equality) also does no harm.

Liberty should be the default position, The government should prohibit only that which severely harms.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Anne, consider this:

"Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere; alterum non laedere; suum cuique tribuere"
(These are the precepts of the law: To live honorably; to hurt nobody; to render to every one his due.)

GLBT people have the same rights as you, they are only denied them because they were born different than you. That is not justice, that's oppression.

Please visit the link on the main page to borndifferent.org and let us know what you think of that research.

John said...

I don't like the argument that this that or some other thing is "good for society".

Society is always best served by individuals (and families) all pursuing their own best interests.

Equality is a worthy goal, in and of itself. It needs no justification; it needs no measure of value to "society".