Here's the list of Western PA State Representatives who have signed on as co-sponsors of the anti-gay marriage amendment. Legislators who think that this is a valuable use of their time, time not spent on your economy or your property taxes or your health care. Time not spent funding road repair, public transportation or workplace safety.
I guess the only thing MORE important than queer-bashing is voting themselves a raise. In the middle of the night.
Your Legislators - Threatening 250,000 heterosexual families to persecute 20,000 gay families.
Don't know if one of these homo-haters is your rep? Click here to find out.
Hon. Anthony M. DeLuca District 23 7205 Saltsburg Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235 (412) 793-2448
Hon. Joseph F. MarkosekDistrict 25Commerce Building, Suite 103 4232 Northern Pike Monroeville, PA 15146 (412) 856-8284
Hon. Joseph A. Petrarca District 55239 Longfellow Street Vandergrift, PA 15690 (724) 567-6982
Hon. Thomas A. Tangretti District 57105 Station Place 101 Ehalt Street Greensburg, PA 15601 (724) 834-6400
Pennsylvania State Representative Dan Frankel (D- Allegheny) released a statement on the proposed state constitutional amendment. Frankel is a long time LGBT ally and, unlike several of his colleagues, recognizes that there are greater threats to Pennsylvania's families than homosexuals. Things like the economy, property tax reform, education, healthy care and so forth.
N E W S R E L E A S E State Rep. Dan B. Frankel D-Allegheny www.pahouse.com/frankel
MEDIA CONTACT: Ben Turner House Democratic Communications Office Phone: 717-787-7895 Fax: 717-772-9930 Email: bturner@pahouse.net
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Frankel blasts constitutional amendment Says it would harm unmarried straight couples, including seniors
HARRISBURG, Jan. 24 - State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, said a state constitutional amendment being introduced today would harm same-sex families and unmarried opposite-sex couples, including many senior citizens. Sponsors of the amendment say it would prevent Pennsylvania judges from authorizing same-sex marriage.
"The sponsors of the so-called 'marriage protection' amendment are using gay-baiting, which is bad enough, to hide a wider agenda. State law has banned legal recognition of same-sex marriage for the past 10 years. It's ironic that a group of mostly Republican legislators is telling everyone not to trust Republican judges, including the Republican-majority state Supreme Court," Frankel said.
The sweeping language of the amendment would ban civil unions and other legal recognition of unmarried relationships. Frankel said it could threaten the rights of adoptive parents, as well as health coverage, medical decision-making rights and inheritance rights. The amendment also could harm senior citizens who do not marry their partners to avoid losing Social Security or pension benefits.
"In Ohio, a similar amendment has caused domestic violence cases with unmarried straight victims to be thrown out - pursuing those cases was found to be 'legal recognition' of the unmarried relationship. In Michigan, anti-gay activists are suing to take away health coverage, even though before the amendment passed, they said those benefits wouldn't be threatened.
"The supporters of this amendment need to read the state Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in the Devlin case about Philadelphia's domestic-partner registry. The court clearly stated the partnership registry was only permitted because it is something less than and distinct from civil marriage.
"This amendment should be put aside so we can focus on bills that actually help people, like property tax reform, raising the minimum wage after nine years, improving our economy and our schools and making affordable health care available to everyone.
"The federal and state constitutions should not be used to take rights away from law-abiding citizens. Our national and state constitutions are the bulwarks that protect the rights of all citizens."
Frankel is the lead sponsor of legislation (H.B. 1417 ) that would allow unmarried partners in same-sex or opposite-sex relationships to make critical health decisions for one another and to visit each other in the hospital. A 2003 poll found 88 percent support in Pennsylvania for such legislation, and last week, Maryland's Republican governor announced his support for a similar bill.
Today, Pennsylvania legislators unveiled their plan to destroy the families of 20,000 gay and 250,000 heterosexual families. The heterosexual families, unmarried per the 2000 Census, are the innocent victims in the homo-haters all out war on Pennsylvania's gay families.
Rep Scott W. Boyd, R-Lancaster County and Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler County are among the prime sponsors of this proposal.
Butler County. Here in Western Pennsylvania. Right up the road. A place where any unmarried heterosexual couple faces the loss of some pretty basic rights thanks to Scotty and Daryl's hatred of gays.
This could mean that women cannot seek a protection from abuse order from their boyfriends if they are not married. See the HRC 2005 report on the impact of similar amendments in other states.
Gay marriage is illegal in Pennsylvania. This is a non-issue. It is simply an attempt to rally the faithful around kicking the homos versus taking care of actual legislative business.
Remember 250,000 heterosexual families will be caught up in this net.
I missed this last week. The Trib's Dimitri Vassilaros opined against the PA legislative attempt to constitutionalize hate and discrimination.
Whenever a judge or legislative body in a state say that homosexuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, it promotes more marriage. Denying gays and lesbians that right is anything but protecting marriage -- it's attacking it. The gays are the ones trying to protect it.
Wow ... who would have thought us homos might actually value and respect the institute of marriage? Or that we could form lasting committed relationships based on trust, mutual respect and love? Next thing you know, people might start getting crazy ideas about our ability successfully parent children!
Vassilaros then makes a point that in his words that every citizen should find chilling ...
The amendment would prevent a court's "finding" a constitutional right to marriage. In other words, marriage is not a right but a privilege that government may bestow to those it favors.
That's right people. The amendment opens that ever so slippery slope toward the goverment determining which marriages are valid and which are not. What big brother giveth, big brother taketh away.
In the latest City Paper, intrepid homofan Marty Levine takes a brief look at the latest political maneuvers in Harrisburg where homohaters have launched another drive to constitutionalize discrimination.
It boils down to this
But as with all debates about gay rights, the issue seems to boil down to conservative fears about the sexuality of pets. As Geer summarizes his group?s proposal: ?No same-sex marriage. No plural marriage. Can?t marry your motorcycle or your dog or anything.?
That's Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute.
This is a bad legislative idea. Its going to hurt a quarter of a million unmarried heterosexual couples as well a a handful of gays.
Well, you knew it wouldn't be too long before the clash between state and federal acknowledgement (or lack thereof) of same sex partnerships would create turmoil.
Rhode Island has just sent notices to domestic partners of state employees informing them that the health and insurance benefits they received are federally taxable income. And the state "forgot" to collect those taxes for the past five years. So now its time to pony up the money.
In a grand gesture, the state will not issue penalties on the overdue taxes and will allow payment plans. They can also issue short term loans. However, the loans might be considered further taxable income.
Here's what one Rhode Island resident had to say:
Rhode Island state employee Barbara Margolis and her partner said the issue is discrimination.
"It's a hard thing for me because I'm very grateful to the state is finally coming around and treating our relationship as an equal relationship as a married couple. At the same time, the federal government is coming back and saying, 'No, no, no. You're strangers to each other,'" Margolis told WJAR.
You tell 'em Barbara. This is one heck of a mistake. LGBT activists think the state should pick up the tab, but the state believes that would be unfair to other taxpayers.
How like the homo-hater run federal goverment to send in the IRS rather than acknowledge the disparity and do something constructive to address it.
Perhaps now that heterosexual partners are included in the big tax oops people will begin to recognize that anti-gay marriage efforts have a significant toll far beyond the LGBT community. This impacts heterosexuals, too. And the financial impact on low and moderate working families is most likely disproportionately high.
Too bad we aren't all Mary Cheneys with rich daddies who help us turn a blind eye to the realities facing working gay families in her daddy's hate-laden society. Traitor.
This ain't funny, folks. The PA legislature, home of the midnight pay raise, has made protecting marriage from the homos a focus right now. Never mind that our fair city of Pittsburgh is crumbling around us while our beloved mayor plugs holes with political hacks. Never mind that GM is closing a plant and putting hundreds of people out of jobs. Never mind that Medicare Part D is a nightmare and thousands of older adults are swimming in a sea of bureaucratic crap. Never mind. Just sling some homohate around and people will <snap> forget all about the real problems that threaten Pennsylvania families.
Tell you legislators that this is a waste of resources, will hurt Pennsylvania families and is unfair to children. Go here to do something.
"We need to do a lot of education," Stacey Sobel, a lawyer and the executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia, told 365Gay.com.
"A significant number [of legislators] who signed on as co-sponsors may not know the consequences and impact it would have," Sobel said.
I am a regular read of The Boondocks strip in the PG, but I must confess that I am often confounded. I get the feeling that I'm definitely not "in" on the real humorous element and/or the real spin on the issue. But I suppose that is how any white middle class lesbian would feel -- the whole point is that I don't really get it, good intentions or not.
My take on the recent gay-marriage Boondocks strips is that he's at the older generation's discomfort with gay issues while acknowleding that its just not as big a deal with younger African-Americans. Overly simplistic?
The relationship between the gay community and the African-American community is fraught with complications. In my mind, gay rights are civil rights. I'm clearly a second class citizen in our society even as a white middle class woman. I don't have access to the basic civil institute of marriage.
Homophobia cannot be justified because it emanates from another disenfranchised group. But the same must be said for racism. I hear a lot of my sisters and brothers in the LGBT community bitching this, but then turn around and wonder why "they" don't come to local LGBT events. And have no friggin clue what they are saying.
We need to stop and think about the impact marriage discimination is going to have on more than just middle class yuppie queers. I see a lot of women, black and white, every single day who aren't in traditional marraiges and have to wonder what will happen to their families if we continue our path back to the glory days of breeder marriages. Maybe these are some of the questions the LGBT community should be tackling and building bridges over rather than focusing on our own middle class issues.
HouseBlend has some terrific stuff on this and has been following the upcoming black church summit on gay and lesbian rights.
7205 Saltsburg Road
District 25Commerce Building, Suite 103
239 Longfellow Street
