PA Marriage Protection Amendment – Again

It's back.  Sigh.  From Equality Advocates:

        

On January 17, 2008, Pennsylvania State Senators started working to pass a so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” that would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman, as well as prohibit civil unions and potentially more.

Please take a moment to call and e-mail your Senator and give a voice to the millions of Pennsylvanians who oppose writing discrimination into our State Constitution. To find your State Senator's contact information, click here.

In 2006, Equality Advocates, with the help of countless LGBT Pennsylvanians and allies across the state, defeated the attempt to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution. This over-reaching amendment would have prohibited relationship recognition for all unmarried couples in the state.

Please act now to help ensure fairness for all Pennsylvanians!

A gay visitor (Anthony M. Brown) to Pittsburgh (Greensburg) took a few minutes to share his thoughts with the Tribune Review.

We don't want anything more than what all other committed couples have: the tax, health, pension, visitation and death protections that are a part of marriage. These are not special rights. They are protections offered by the government, not the Catholic Church.

Anthony, thanks for making time to share your thoughts.  Another quarter heard from is the American Family Association of Pennsylvania where Diane Gramley was stomping her faith-clad furry boots because “homosexual organizations” got the jump on her in broadcasting this legislative flurry.  Here's an interesting claim:

Pennsylvania’s primary election is April 22nd.  Are you registered to vote?  The last day to register is March 24th.  An important fact mentioned by David Barton during my interview with him:  over 90% of homosexual men and lesbians voted in 2006, while 30 million Christians stayed home! 

As always, Diane asks for your money but not your prayers.

This was an ugly victory last time around in 2006 and a clear example of social conservative Democratic values clashing with the interests and civil rights of the entire LGBT community.   Here's how the last round of elected officials voted on the marriage amendment.  Many of those in the House took the straightforward coward's way of voting in favor of amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  The Senate did this elaborate dance of “yes, I am, no I am not” switcheroos so they could vote against the “concept” while not having to deal with a pro-homo vote. 

Don't let them get the jump on us.  Contact your Senator today and ask her/him to oppose amending hate into our Constitution.

Share This Post!