Tag Archives: Babette Josephs

Pennsylvania Approval for Marriage Equality On The Rise

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Yet two recent polls have found that support for same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania is rising near or above 50 percent. For the first time since Muhlenberg College started polling on gay marriage, most Pennsylvanians indicated in December 2011 that they believe same-sex marriage should be legal. Susquehanna Polling and Research found earlier in 2011 that Pennsylvanians support legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a 2-to-1 ratio.

State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, credited President Obama’s May announcement in support of gay marriage for spurring dialogue among lawmakers and voters who had once opposed it. Mr. Barack Obama described how he changed his mind on marriage as he grew to know gay friends, soldiers and staff members in committed relationships.

“When Pennsylvanians call themselves conservative, I don’t believe they mean nastiness, discrimination, hate,” Ms. Josephs said. “They mean let’s be fair, let’s take things a little slowly and think about them. And that’s what happened when the president opened the conversation in the way that he did.”

This is part of a rather sweeping piece about marriage equality, starting with the attempts by a local lesbian couple to sign up with the “domestic partner registery” offered by the City of Pittsburgh and ending with the Mayor’s support for marriage equality.

Along the way, the reporter delves into the politics of “marriage protection” amendments, the impact of equality on economic and workforce development and the national prominence of a native son (Evan Wolfson) in the marriage equality discussion.

Josephs’ spin on the “conservative” nature of Pennsylvania residents is intriguing. I agree that the President paved the way for more dialogue and I agree that social conservatives want to take things slowly, but not “let’s be fair.” I suspect it is a weird fusion of  ”live and let live” libertarian values with conservative religious values that define the areas where someone should tell us how to live (namely, the Christian God and his emissaries.)

The incremental approach would explain the changing attitudes – more Pennsylvanians are getting to know LGBTQ persons, both in real life and through entertainment.  The same disconnect exists in the Catholic Church – as the church itself becomes less tolerant, American Catholics move to the left.

Notice the parallel between the church and the Pennsylvania state?

As I’ve said before, passing the non-discrimination legislation should be paramount. HB 300 would give all LGBTQ persons protection in the workplace, housing and with public accomodations whereas marriage equality typically benefits lesbians and gay men and bisexual men & women in same sex relationships.  HB 300 is the lynchpin to make a significant advance for our community.

Another good job from the Post-Gazette. I wish they would be a little more consistent in the fairness & accuracy of their reporting, but we’re working on that. Let me know if you pick up on the elements I’m referencing.

Please share this content.

State Rep Pushes to Modify Tax Code, Eliminate Discriminatory Inheritance Tax

State Representative Babette Josephs wants to eliminate a 15% inheritance tax for domestic partners, LGBTQ and straight, and is urging her colleagues to take action on legislation she introduced in 2011.  Erie Gay News has the story.

Josephs’ legislation (H.B. 1828) would define a domestic partnership as a relationship not defined by marriage or a civil union, but one where the two people agree to mutual interdependence and take responsibility for the maintenance and support of the other.

In order to prove this relationship for an inheritance tax exemption, the surviving domestic partner would have to provide a signed partnership affidavit and any two documents proving their:

  • joint liability of a mortgage, lease or loan;
  • primary beneficiary on the other’s life insurance policy or retirement plan;
  • primary beneficiary on the deceased’s will;
  • durable power of attorney for health care or financial management;
  • joint ownership or lease of a motor vehicle;
  • joint checking account, investments or credit account;
  • joint renter’s or homeowner’s insurance policy;
  • coverage on a health insurance policy;
  • joint responsibility for child care, such as guardianship or school documents; or
  • relationship or cohabitation contract.

Josephs said that at a 15 percent rate, the surviving partner’s inheritance tax bill could be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Currently, only spouses and parents of children under 21 are exempt from paying inheritance taxes on property bequeathed them.

In a 2010 report issued by The Center for American Progress and SAGE (Services & Advocacy for LGBT Elders), Pennsylvania ranked in the Top Ten Worst States for these punitive taxes. It is an unjust tax – imagine losing your beloved and then facing losing your home if you don’t have thousands for the privilege of inheriting it?

An inheritance tax is different than an estate tax – estate taxes only kick in when the property is worth A LOT of money. This inheritance tax applies to Jim and John, living in their shared house for 30 years. So much is up in the air — will Jim be able to access John’s pension? What about health insurance? And how was the house deeded? Its complicated enough without the state penalizing us because we can’t legalize our relationships.

I think this is a smart move and you’ll note that Josephs is focused on all domestic partners – even those who could marry. She’s validating a commitment than includes financial commitments which together contributed to the “worth” of the deceased partner. And it is a practical way to eliminate an injustice.

These are the small steps we can promote in PA to address inequality.

 

Please share this content.

Vote on PA “Marriage Amendment” Delayed

Tuesday AM. The Pennsylvania House Committtee on State Government was scheduled to vote on HB 1434 which started the ball rolling on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. etc etc etc.

Today, that ball didn’t go anywhere. Again.

Debate on the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions was put off until a dateTBD. The panel’s chairman, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, cited the large number of amendments attached the bill (coupled with what’s expected to be a busy day on VoterID) as the reason for the delay.

One suspects that timing may have only been part of the panel’s reason for delaying action.

Civil rights and gay and lesbian advocates packed the room, clearing expecting some fireworks. A House security guard was also stationed outside the door of the meeting room.

Good job to advocates everywhere.  Special word of thanks House Democrat Babette Josephs who serves on the committee and challenged Metcalfe on his motives and agenda when the state clearly has a lot of real issues to deal with, right? Like the Voter ID Bill.

If you need a good eye roll, follow the link (that ball didn’t) and see what the committee did approve this morning. Holy Smokes.

It is a very good thing to have this bill not actively in consideration. So many of our sisters and brothers around the nation are struggling with the realities of these amendments that its simply a relief. This was a particularly vicious version – it would potentially strip any local government of the ability to offer domestic partner benefits. I think Metcalfe has a very defined agenda on eroding local and federal control of his state and it starts with his gun control bill stripping municipalities of putting any further restrictions on gun control than the state. But more on that later.

For now, enjoy the reprieve. It was heartening to see so many tweets and so forth.  Just don’t lose a bit of your wariness, okay?

Please share this content.