As reported by the PG web-edition, City Council gave a thumbs up on the first vote for the domestic partner registry.  The lone naysayer was the Reverend Ricky Burgess.  Final vote will be next week.  No word on how the Mayor feels about all this registry stuff, but it appears veto proof at this stage of the game.

Sigh.  I am only speculating here, but my guess is that Reverend Burgess is sticking with the right wing rhetoric that even second class relationship civil rights are too much for Pittsburgh's homosexuals.  This new system is just a scooch along the path toward anything resembling civil unions in Pennsylvania.  Barely a scooch.  Way more important to this lesbian is the probability that this registry will help our family keep our domestic partner benefits if Ledcat's job is merged into the County.  Which is unlikely given her job, but it is good to be prepared.  Like Boy Scouts.  Only with labia.

I emailed Councilmen Shields and Kraus (no "e") asking for their thoughts on how the registry requirements might impact low income families, suggesting that the City compile a guide on how to meet the registry requirements.  The most vulnerable families are those least likely to afford things like attorney fees for wills and those most likely to have financial and credit blemishes impacting their economic stability.  Thus, they are most in need of the registry benefits (if any are available to them). 

And, to be honest, some of the requirements are a bit arduous.  I went through the process of adding my name to the household utility bills and it was a pain.  Lots of red tape and questions and three way phone calls.  It would be great if the City could put together a simple how to list to make things easier.  I would hate to see this great new resource benefit only those of us who have the luxury of joint credit cards and power of attorney documents.  That would be a great shame. 

You know ... that would be a great project for the Mayor's new LGBT Advisory Board with input from his LGBT Liaison.  Oh, except for the little detail that he hasn't appointed any of those people.  Darn. 

Matthew Fusina of Franklin Park seems a little fed up.

A little foray into the fascinating world of sexual history would reveal that our "[recently] corrupted society" has, in fact, been corrupt at least since the dawn of recorded history. Before Mr. Davis makes such broad historical generalizations in the future, I would encourage him and those who hold staunch opinions based on anecdotal versions of history to become familiar with some of the classics in sexual history. I particularly would recommend works by John Boswell, Thomas Laqueur, Peter Gay and George Chauncey, all highlights of the modern sexual canon. Even if you leave with the same opinion, it will prevent the future course of the marriage debate from being filled with historical half-truths.

Update:  The Pittsburgh City Paper's Melissa Meinzer and Chris Potter do a really good job with this story on the CP's website.  Good example of how web based media serves the CP readership.  And you. 

I contacted Shields' office and encountered a reluctance to work with a blogger which was disappointing as I worked very hard to get his letter to Sally Kern picked up by gay media around the country.  Ah well ...

****************************************************************

City Council President Doug Shields and City Councilperson Bruce Kraus are proposing the development of City domestic registry for unmarried couples which would formalize the process for determining eligibility of City employees for domestic partnership benefits AND provide private employers with a similar resource.  According to the Post-Gazette, the registry will also recognize familial relationships defined by mutual support.

I'm waiting for a comment from Council President Shields.  I'm also poking around to see what impact this has had in other communities, including Philadelphia. 

The PG story is here. 

Ledcat and I already have an affidavit of our domestic partnership.  It was a pain to get it and put us through more far more hoops than is reasonable.  How many heterosexual married couples have to get both names on utility bills -- do you know how complicated that is? 

This is an interesting step forward.  I'm curious as to how the Mayor rules on this and hopeful this will force the issue of addressing domestic partnership benefits in a potential City-County merger.

Stay tuned ...

From Tuesday's Post-Gazette.  Always good to read a hit-the-nail-on-the-head letter.

Like letter writer Kim Winbush ("Let's Keep Discrimination Out of the Pa. Constitution," May 16), I too was happy to see the Pennsylvania Senate table the Marriage Protection Amendment.

This brazen attempt to pander to the theocratic aims of the religious right must be opposed by all who cherish the freedoms of our secular nation.

Would that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court follow the excellent example of the California Supreme Court ("Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in California," May 16).

AMESH A. ADALJA, MD
Butler

Amen!

What's good news for Californian queers may mean the battle over same-sex marriage heats up again in Pennsylvania as the anti-gay marriage amendment backers put on the pressure to revive that legislation.

They argue that predictions of courts overruling state DOMA laws has come true and call the Pennsylvania House to gird their loins for battle.

Not so quick.  Michigan's Supreme Court just ruled that a statewide ban means no domestic partner benefits for state employees. In other words, the implications for an amendment about "marriage" could be far reaching.  Regardless of California. 

So what does all this mean for you?  Well, I'd say two things.  First, let's hurrah for our California sisters and brothers. 

Second, maybe you should call your representative in the Pennsylvania House and let them know that you are opposed to the amendment and do not want to see it gain momentum when so much important legislative work remains to be done.  You can find out who represents you via the Equality Advocates website.  It can't hurt to make that call. 

And remember ... a little over 30 days until PrideFest 2008.  Equality Advocates should have a table there.  So will Steel City Stonewall Democrats.  Excellent opportunity to get involved and show them some $$ love to keep their good groove going. 

i

From CNN.com

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

How about that?  We deserve basic civil rights. 

I'm very happy.  We need to keep moving forward here in Pennsylvania, keep working toward expanding our own civil rights.  Keep motivated.  Keep up the pressure and the volume. 

I saw it first at Delaware Online followed by the Post-Gazette.

HARRISBURG -- The state Senate this evening voted to table a bill that would have amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

The main sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, said it had become clear to him that the bill would not pass in the House and he therefore saw no point to a lengthy debate in the Senate.

The bill might have passed the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans 29-21.

Up to 14 amendments were planned on the bill, which would have meant a long night.

So what does this mean?  Essentially, the bill has been put on ice, but it still has a heart beat and could come back.  We can't forget that even as we rejoice.

What does that mean?  YOU FREAKIN' DID IT!  The Bill was expected to pass the Senate today and head for the House to be killed.  But you you you beautiful homo lovin' telephone workin' fabulous folks made a difference.

Nice job, kids. 

Clearly, there is work to be done.  Now we have to turn our attention to HB1400 which will expand civil protections to our community.  Instead of fighting against, we are on the fighting for team and we have multiple champions, including the Pittsburgh City Council.

Luke Ravenstahl is not one of those champions on this issue.  He has declined to support the legislation. 

I'm just sayin...

Pennsylvania's most colorful Senator -- and he would stand out brightly even in the gayest of gay communities -- Vince Fumo is proposing to amend the, well, amendment legislation to outlaw divorce with a few exceptions.

Mr. Fumo, who leaves the Senate on Nov. 30, said the stated goal of Senate Bill 1250 is to "protect the sanctity of the marital institution" by defining a legal marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The next logical step, according to Mr. Fumo, is to also outlaw divorces

You know, there just isn't much I can add to that. 

Except this ... if Vince Fumo will go to such lengths, can't you make a phone call? 

We have to start calling our House members soon. 

UPDATE:  I made a call this morning to Fontana's office in Harrisburg.  They are getting a ton of calls, going both directions.  Similar reports from Costa's Harrisburg office.  Keep it up.  Sneak out for a cigarette break, even if you don't smoke, to make the call. I also heard that the rally is noisy.  All good news.  Keep it up.  You are doing great

******************************************************************

Rejoice, fair homo and homo allies, for there is something very important you can do right from the comfort of your own cell phone.

Call your Senator.  Tell the nice staff person who answer the phone that you are opposed to attempts to amend the constitution of Pennsylvania to prevent gay marriage aka SB 1250.  That's all you really need to say, along with your name and address (so they know you are really a constituent).

If you want to say more, do so.  Ask how the Senator stands on this issue (if you don't know).  Thank the Senator for a pro-homo stance.  Tell them why you are opposed to the amendment. Talk about your family.  Mention the issues that are important to you -- health care?  employment?  economic development?  taxes?  whatever!

For my impassioned take on things, visit my Blog for Equality post.

The important thing is that you are reaching for your cell phone right now, scribbling down the number and heading for whatever quiet nook is necessary for you to make the call. 

Why now?  Why Monday?  Because the bill is going to be voted out of Appropriations and possibly to the full Senate for a vote.  This week.  So waiting until it is more convenient for your individual life is not an option. 

This isn't a situation where you -- especially if you are a gay person or love a gay person -- have the luxury of letting someone else do the heavy lifting.  A contingent of Pittsburghers gave up a day to staff the rally for us.  The telephone calls, well that's our part of the homosexual agenda.  Step lively, people. Or, rather, dial lively! 

You know that this amendment is smoke screen designed to keep us from organizing around important civil rights legislation sitting in committee.  You know that this is about using gay marriage as an issue for the election -- rile 'em up to vote for McCain. 

And you know that is all complete bullshit. The worst thing that could happen to our heterosexual married friends, family members and neighbors if Ledcat and I were to marry?  The wedding registry.  We have expensive tastes.

Why are you still reading this?  Oh, you need telephone numbers.  Here's the entire fleet of Southwestern PA Senators.  If you don't know who represents you, click here to find out. 

Jay Costa   Hburg  (717) 787-7683   Pittsburgh   (412) 241-6690
Sean Logan   Hburg (717) 787-5580    Pittsburgh  (412) 664-5200
Wayne Fontana Hburg (717) 787-5300   Pittsburgh (412) 344-2551
John Pippy  Hburg (717) 787-5839   Pittsburgh  (412) 262-2260
Jim Ferlo Hburg (717) 787-6123    Pittsburgh  (412) 621-3006
Jane Orie Hburg (717) 787-6538   Pittsburgh (412) 630-9466 j
J. Barry Stout  Hburg (717) 787-1463   Pittsburgh (724) 225-5400 b
Gerald Lavelle Hburg (717) 787-3076   Pittsburgh   (724) 654-1444
Mary Jo White Hburg (717) 787-9684   Pittsburgh  (814) 432-4345
Donald C.White Hburg (717) 787-8724   Pittsburgh  (724) 357-0151
Robert D. Robbins Hburg (717) 787-1322   Pittsburgh (724) 588-1323
Bob Regola Hburg (717) 787-6063    Pittsburgh   (724) 600-7002
Richard Kasunic Hburg (717) 787-7175   Pittsburgh (724) 626-1611

Now stop reading and start calling.  It is practically painless. 

Seriously, are you dialing? 

Wow, lots to catch up on ...

Monday, May 5, 2008 is the Rally in Harrisburg.  Rally?  The Rally Against the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment.  Ledcat and I had hoped to attend, but fate (and work) conspired against us. Are you planning to attend?  I'm hoping for an eyewitness account.

Last week, there was a "highly charged" hearing in Harrisburg.  The PG has the coverage

Scott Hollander, executive director of KidsVoice, said his board members are divided on the gay marriage issue but unanimous in opposing the language banning "the functional equivalent of marriage." Under that language, children placed with unmarried foster parents could be denied health insurance through domestic-partner benefit programs and could face hurdles if those foster families want to adopt them, he said.

"They could lose many of the benefits they currently enjoy," said Mr. Hollander, whose group serves abused and neglected children in Pittsburgh.

It continues to amaze me that the folks opposed to the amendment have a long list of concrete ways this legislation will have a negative impact on families whereas the other side just has a claim that it will protect families with nothing to back it up.  How is it we are still having this discussion?

Here are the letters of recent vintage:

M.W. Sage of Swissvale puts it succinctly:

Regarding the bill to protect heterosexual marriage ("Backers, Foes of Gay Marriage Collide at Capitol," April 30): There are many greater issues needing attention. Couples know when a relationship is working and when it isn't. They can seek help if they want it.

The same is so for gay relationships.

The nation and the world have more pressing issues to be addressed. Let the Legislature busy itself with those.

Well put.

Meanwhile, a series of letters in the Tribune Review finally address this issue.

First up is Sharon Capretto of Mt. Washington.  She is a member of the Cult to Protect Marriage (something like that) and thinks that the will of the people is not embedded in our legislative system.  She must not vote.  Or at least, she doesn't trust most of the people who do vote:

This proposed amendment would give our federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional protection to ensure that a judge or the Legislature could not redefine marriage in our state without the will of the people. Twenty-seven states have seen fit to pass similar amendments. Pennsylvanians would like the same consideration.

In response, Amesh Adalja of Butler (hey, that's cool -- Metcalfe Country)is embarrassed by the Republicans embracing this issue at the expense of real concerns.

Inserting religious proscriptions into the state Constitution utilizes precious legislative time that could be directed toward lowering taxes, scaling back the size of state government, privatizing the state liquor stores and many other worthy Republican causes.

Then, Kris Sanders of Squirrel Hill (really?) chimes in:

Such moral reasoning recognizes that marriage is inherently based upon the complementarity between a man and a woman. They are clearly designed to come together in a way that leads to the generation of new life. It is the fundamental building block of any society.

I'm not sure it is scientifically accurate to claim that two men or two women cannot complement each other, unless you reduce human beings to the sum of the reproductive organs.  I'd say the 20,000+ children in the Pennsylvania foster care system are proof positive of that reductive assumption being utter bullshit.  By the way, how many kids do you foster, Kris? 

Now, I'm not an expert on the Founding Fathers, but I did study a little political theory.  My understanding of Jefferson and Madison is that society is built upon the individual in relationship to the institution.  They had a clear concept of individual freedoms and liberties, not family based liberties. Women and children weren't even enumerated in the Constitution, considered the property or wards of the male head of household.  Is that where Kris wants to go?  It was only through societal progress and a recognition of the civil rights of women (and children) that the modern family has evolved (and women are allowed to read newspapers). 

The family is not the building block of society, Kris.  Your partner/spouse and your children have rights and responsibilities that are separate and distinct from your own.  Coming together to build a family sometimes strengthens society and sometimes does not.  But you should be more precise if you plan to throw around scientific terms like "complementarity." 

Have you written your letter to the Post-Gazette, the Tribune-Review or the Pittsburgh City Paper?  People do pay attention.  Even legislators.