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.
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.
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
I have been married for almost 45 years. Not once in all that time did either my wife or I feel threatened by the gay people we knew. What I need is protection from people like the "jubilant" state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry
Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer thinks that voters are disgusted about the obsessive focus on gay marriage to the detriment of other actual issues (Iraq, fuel prices, immigration, the economy, and healthcare are the top five). And this disgust might lead to a bit of backlash at the polls.
I caught this columnist tonight on McIntire's radio show as I was fleeing the suburbs of Cranberry to return to the sanity of the inner city. It was like a reunion of cojoined twins listening to the Johns grapple for the banter-meister mantle. Call me disloyal, but I think Baer might have taken it during that segment. :-)
Anyway, Baer points out that true conservatives aren't consumed with homopersecution and resent being pigeonholed on cultural issues.
"It makes no sense on any level," says a national GOP consultant requesting anonymity to avoid drawing criticism from paying clients. "Republicans risk being defined as the socially conservative party, and only that, as opposed to the party conservative on the economy, conservative on national security, the things that allowed Republicans to dominate for so long."
Being defined by one aspect of your identity? I can't imagine what that must be like!
Essentially, the homo-frenzy may turn out the tried and true Santorumites who see no problem with Ricky employing a spokesfag to spin his gay bashing rhetoric- if you can't marry 'em, lure 'em into traitorous high paid jobs and hope they don't notice?
However, Baer postulates that the broader constituent base may in fact resent this grandstanding enough to voice their displeasure at the polls.
I don't doubt some sincere people sincerely see gay marriage as threatening civilization. (Though same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for two years and as far as I know Boston hasn't turned into a pillar of salt.) But political leaders who push this - Bush, Sens. Frist and Santorum, legislative leaders in Harrisburg - insult and cheat their broader constituencies.
Paging a few Democrats --- H. William DeWeese of Waynesburg; Vince Biancucci of Aliquippa; James Casorio of Irwin; Peter Daley of California; Anthony DeLuca of Penn Hills; R. Ted Harhai of Monessen; Nick Kotik of Robinson; Victor Lescovitz of Midway; David Levdansky of Forward; Joseph Markosek of Monroeville; John Pallone of New Kensington; Joseph Petrarca of Vandergrift; Thomas Petrone of Crafton Heights; Sean Ramaley of Conway; Harry Readshaw of Carrick; Larry Roberts of Hopwood; Ken Ruffing of West Mifflin; James Shaner of Lemont Furnace; Thomas Tangretti of Greensburg.
Last night, State Representative Dan Frankel appeared on KDKA's John McIntire program to discuss the alleged marriage protection amendment. Frankel was straightforward about the prospect that if the bill gets to the floor of the Senate for a vote, it will pass. He reasoned that the same divisive fears and desperate pandering to the right wingers will be in the heart of the good Senators of Pennsylvania (obviously, my words and not his) resulting in yet another demonstration of the gay-panic defense that pervades politics these days.
I called in and asked Representative Frankel what a good gay Democrat is to do about all the guys on OUR side who voted in favor of the amendment ....Western PA reps such as Dave Levdansky, Joseph Markosek, Harry Readshaw, Anthony DeLuca and so forth.
<There is no need to even mention Ken Ruffing of West Mifflin whose 16 visits from the police on domestic disturbances make him a fine candidate for his upcoming job with the PA Gambling thugs.- further proof that the crony system is alive and well>
Frankel told me that we need to work to ensure a Democrat majority in the house and senate and that this is a wakeup call to LGBT advocates and activists that we have to work much harder to build relationships with these officials so we can prove to them that their fears are groundless. I was taken aback at how grubby that sounds, but he's probably right. I guess its the Bob Casey trickle down effect; they are good on most issues and we can, hopefully, work with them on the others.
That still doesn't sit right with me .... I need more. What do you think --- vote 'em out or work with them? I pretty pissed off right now at these guys. And I'm STUNNED that Mike Divin voted against the amendment, although I suspect he's either trying to appeal to moderate Democrats in his battle against Democrat Chelsa Wagner or he's just giving the big F to the Republican leadership.
The PG continues to collect your opinion on the matter. Please send an e-mail with your name and hometown to postscript@post-gazette.com.
The Trib printed two letters this morning, one for and one against. The "against" letter was so boring and trite, I won't bother to quote it. But shout out to Melanie O. Paulick of Mt. Lebanon for her little missive.
It is easy to point fingers at something that may be uncomfortable for us to consider, but it is much less easy for us to fix the problem with ourselves. If banning gay marriage because it would mean children don't have both a mother and a father is truly your argument, you'd better make sure you come from the perfect family.
Melanie, dear, that would mean that all the right wingers would have to put down their fetus signs, turn off The 700 Club and go out and mingle with the great unwashed sinners in the soup kitchens, the jails, the homeless shelters, the senior centers OR maybe open their perfect little homes to foster children <gasp>. You know, the things Jesus would do. They'd rather sit home, point their fingers and use their hypocritical prayers to judge us.
Frankly, I'd rather hang with the great unwashed.
And our good friend and frequent Correspondent commenter Bob Arlia of Cranberry got a few points into the PG article on the fractious culture politics in Harrisburg.
"The representatives who voted for this bill are religion-driven, fear-mongering terrorists," Robert Arlia of Cranberry said yesterday.
"Every terrorist in the world uses religion as the basis for their actions. What the House did is use religion as the excuse to be a terrorist to all the gay and lesbian people in this state," said Mr. Arlia, who's been in a committed relationship with his male partner for 23 years.
The Post-Gazette would like to hear your opinion on the issue. Please send an e-mail with your name and hometown to postscript@post-gazette.com.
A few snippets ... its really quite interesting.
The Republican Party is misguided in its attempt to become the political weapon of organized religion. It is imperative that Republicans reclaim this party from the Religious Right.
-- Amesh Adalja, Butler
My only wish for you is a litter of gay children and grandchildren, maybe then you will see how much hatred and lack of understand hurts!
-- Christie S. Jeannette
I think governor Schwarzenegger said it best: "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
-- Matt Kurczewski, Pittsburgh
How appropriate that the PA House's work of evil (discrimination) should coincide with the date of 666.
-- Robert Arlia, Cranberry
Not taking a stand on same-sex marriage would add grease to the slide our society is already on. This slide ends in the pit of Hell.
-- Joe Afflerbach
These corrupt riff raff, aka state legislature are desperately seeking an issue that will prevent their mass execution in November. They are beneath contempt!
-- Jack W., Lewisburg, Pa.
I do not have any problem with gays. I actually have some friends that are gay.
-- Paul S.
The same people that tell the government "GET OUT OF MY GUN SAFE" are also telling the government to get INTO everyone else's bedrooms and family structures. What a bunch of hypocrites.
This is heartening. Joseph Bute of Pine took the time to write in and question Bush's pandering to special interests while serious crises abound. This is my favorite quote:
Facing a need to overcome serious and significant differences of opinion on the fate of more than 12 million immigrants in the United States, he has time to talk about his personal faith in heterosexuality.
Actually, his personal faith in rich, white, male heterosexuality. But that's quibbling.
Joseph, thanks for picking up your pen and keeping the PG readers aware of how much anti-anti-gay marriage amendment sentiment there is in Pennsylvania.
Another interesting read is from Sarah H. Springer, M.D. medical director of International Adoption Health Services of Western Pennsylvania and chair of the section on adoption and foster care at the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Dr. Springer believes that marriage amendments will hurt children.
When legal recognition of committed couples and families is denied, children lose health insurance, inheritance rights and the rights to have their parents make medical and educational decisions for them. Children can lose the right to have a parent present for their comfort in medical settings, and can lose the protection of support in the case of parental separations, which happen sometimes in homosexual relationships, just as they do in heterosexual marriages.
Defining marriage as only between a man and a woman could deny thousands of children who wait for foster and adoptive homes the availability of willing, capable, loving parents.
She reiterates that all the scientific research shows that children of homosexual families are just as happy and well-adjusted as kids in heterosexual families.
As Dr. Springer notes, amendments aren't going to suddenly cure homosexuals. We won't disappear and neither will our kids. We will be forced to exist in a second-tier status within this society which of course means so will our children. Haven't we been there already in America? In fact, aren't we still there when it comes to racial divides within society?
It is important that people of good conscience stand up for what is right for all children and families.
Proponents of these amendments argue that allowing gay marriages will harm traditional families. This was the same argument used in days gone by to oppose interfaith marriages and inter-racial marriages. These claims were based on nothing but fear and prejudice, and we have learned, of course, that diversity makes all of our lives richer.
Fear and prejudice seem to be American specialities. With the homos attacking our marriages and the immigrants stealing our jobs and tax dollars, who has time to fear a government attacking our privacy, economy and environment? Duh!
The PG contained three 
Philadelphia Daily News columnist 
