Daylin Leach, a Pennsylvania state Senator, advocated marriage equality in a March 24th debate with Maggie Gallagher, executive of the National Organization for Marriage. (Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry) Senator Leach is author of the first bill (SB 935) to overturn the state DOMA (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1704), even though a state judge recently upheld the DOMA's constitutionality.
You can watch the debate here. At Daylinsights.com, Senator Leach summarizes Gallagher's arguments and how he answered them. Gallagher is a cogent debater, but she more than met her match. Senator Leach graces his intellect with rapier wit and disarming charm. These are rare gifts for an elected official.
Of course, my comments represent no substitute for watching the debate or reading Leach's post. I offer my own selective summary to highlight particular points of interest.
Leach identified grave harm to same-sex couples and their children from marriage inequality. Given the nature and extent of this harm, he said that government's continued unequal treatment of same-sex couples requires compelling justification. To justify current bans on same-sex marriage, Gallagher relied on the familiar arguments that are her hallmark. She predicted that if the state allows same-sex couples to marry, state protection of their right to marry would undermine what she understands as marriage's unique and fundamental purpose - to ensure that a child will have a mother and a father. As a result, fewer families will have mothers and fathers, and children will be harmed. Her prediction depends on speculation. She speculates that, in at least two ways, the government would "marginalize" marriage's alleged purpose. The state would require public schools to teach students that society has no reason to privilege different-sex marriages; and the state would penalize religious believers in traditional marriage.
Gallagher raised the canard of "public school indoctrination" that, in their respective campaigns, Prop. 8 and Yes on 1 proponents successfully deployed against marriage equality. If same-sex couples can marry, then public schools will be required to teach students that a child does not need a mother and a father, and that anyone who believes otherwise is a bigot. When these students reach adulthood, they will have less incentive to form two-parent families, leading to more "fragmented" families. Presumably because more children will grow up in single-parent households, Gallagher concludes that "down the road...a lot of kids will be hurt."
Gallagher also claimed that if Leach's legislation was enacted, the state would "impose" a "definition" of marriage on organizations and individuals that offends their religious principles. She invoked the case of a lesbian who sued a California evangelical physician for refusing to carry out artificial insemination, even though he identified alternative providers. However, in North Coast Woman's Medical Care Center, Inc., v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ruled that constitutional protection of their religious speech does not exempt physicians from the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Same-sex marriage was never at issue in the case, although Gallagher implies that it was because it was decided at almost the same time as In re Marriage Cases. Moreover, Gallagher warned that religious charities could lose their tax-exempt status, and that Catholic Charities would do what it did in Massachusetts and D.C., by withdrawing its adoption and foster care services. But whether or not Massachusetts and D.C. had adopted marriage equality, each has laws barring Catholic Charities from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Leach observed that same-sex marriages will not stop opposite-sex couples from marrying and raising children, and will not somehow dispose heterosexuals to change their orientation to pursue same-sex marriage. Public schools already have a responsibility to instill respect for tolerance, but their curricula need not incorporate discussion of same-sex marriages. Just as the Texas Board of Education recently adapted public curriculum to conservative ideology, voters could elect education officials to prohibit any instruction involving the subject of same-sex marriage.
Leach characterized Gallagher's objections as mishegas - "crazy talk" about the terrible things that would happen from same-sex marriage. He reduced the objections to variations of the "heckler's veto." The fallacy here involves those who disapprove of civil rights for an unpopular minority. They demand that discrimination continue because otherwise their less rational allies may resort to deplorable forms of confrontation, including violence. Here the heckler's veto applies by analogy to Gallagher's warning about alleged dangers to public school students, and evangelical physicians and Catholic Charities. To prevent the horribile dictu, Gallagher insists that same-sex couples must be deprived of a fundamental right. Leach contends that she and her supporters are not entitled to a version of the heckler's veto.
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania Marriage Equality Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pennsylvania Marriage Equality Legislation. Show all posts
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Recent news and commentary
Lewis v. Harris II
Evan Wolfson is executive director of Freedom To Marry, and Hayley Gorenberg is deputy legal director of Lambda Legal. At Huffington Post, they examine why plaintiff couples in New Jersey have renewed their state Supreme Court case to gain marriage equality.
Perry v. Schwarzenneger
Gloria Borger, a CNN Senior Political Analyst, interviewed Theodore Olson and David Boies, attorneys for the plaintiffs. ("The Odd Couple," 03/25/10 Campbell Brown Blog) Law professor Orin Kerr complains about the perceived absence of comparable profiles of Charles Cooper, attorney for the Prop. 8 proponents. (Volokh Conspiracy) I link to a Cooper profile here.
Marriage equality v. "marriage protection" - a debate in Pennsylvania
Daylin Leach is a Pennsylvania state Senator whose district lies near Philadelphia. He has distinguished himself as a marriage equality advocate by introducing legislation (SB 935) to repeal the state's DOMA and recognize same-sex marriages. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) In June, he debated state Senator John Eichelberger, who recently failed to advance his "marriage protection" amendment (SB 707) out of committee. Leach introduced the motion to table it, and the motion was approved. (Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry)
Last night in Harrisburg, he debated Maggie Gallagher, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. (Freedom to Marry) Pennsylvania Public Radio reporter Scott Detrow moderated the debate, and features sound clips here. He expects PCN to carry a video "at some point." (03/26/10 update: You can watch the debate here.)
Marriage equality - D.C.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) tried to amend the reconciliation bill on medical insurance, with provision for a referendum on D.C.'s marriage-equality law, but his last-minute maneuver ended in predictable defeat. (Law Dork / Washington Post / AMERICAblog Gay / HRC Back Story) Freedom To Marry finds that the defeat makes marriage equality "safe." That reassurance warrants qualification. Bennett's gambit represented no credible threat, even if he scored political points among partisan supporters in advance of his 2010 primary. More importantly, a pending lawsuit on a marriage initiative will likely reach the Supreme Court, and may yet succeed there. (Proposition 8 and The Right To Marry)
Divorce
Matt Lloyd is a family law practitioner in Austin. At the Texas Family Law Blog, he describes the difficulties of same-sex couples who seek divorces in states that ban same-sex marriage. He discusses two divorce cases in his state, observing that "we may be approaching an interesting family law jurisprudence in Texas."
Evan Wolfson is executive director of Freedom To Marry, and Hayley Gorenberg is deputy legal director of Lambda Legal. At Huffington Post, they examine why plaintiff couples in New Jersey have renewed their state Supreme Court case to gain marriage equality.
Perry v. Schwarzenneger
Marriage equality v. "marriage protection" - a debate in Pennsylvania
Daylin Leach is a Pennsylvania state Senator whose district lies near Philadelphia. He has distinguished himself as a marriage equality advocate by introducing legislation (SB 935) to repeal the state's DOMA and recognize same-sex marriages. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) In June, he debated state Senator John Eichelberger, who recently failed to advance his "marriage protection" amendment (SB 707) out of committee. Leach introduced the motion to table it, and the motion was approved. (Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry)
Last night in Harrisburg, he debated Maggie Gallagher, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. (Freedom to Marry) Pennsylvania Public Radio reporter Scott Detrow moderated the debate, and features sound clips here. He expects PCN to carry a video "at some point." (03/26/10 update: You can watch the debate here.)
Marriage equality - D.C.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) tried to amend the reconciliation bill on medical insurance, with provision for a referendum on D.C.'s marriage-equality law, but his last-minute maneuver ended in predictable defeat. (Law Dork / Washington Post / AMERICAblog Gay / HRC Back Story) Freedom To Marry finds that the defeat makes marriage equality "safe." That reassurance warrants qualification. Bennett's gambit represented no credible threat, even if he scored political points among partisan supporters in advance of his 2010 primary. More importantly, a pending lawsuit on a marriage initiative will likely reach the Supreme Court, and may yet succeed there. (Proposition 8 and The Right To Marry)
Divorce
Matt Lloyd is a family law practitioner in Austin. At the Texas Family Law Blog, he describes the difficulties of same-sex couples who seek divorces in states that ban same-sex marriage. He discusses two divorce cases in his state, observing that "we may be approaching an interesting family law jurisprudence in Texas."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Opposing measures by two Pennyslvania state Senators on same-sex marriage: Part 2: Senator Daylin Leach on "Putting Marriage To A Vote"
Senator Daylin Leach represents the 17th district in eastern Pennsylvania. He is the first state legislator in Pennsylvania to introduce marriage-equality legislation (SB 935). It is uncertain, if not unlikely, that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up his legislation. But the obstacles do not deter him. He has unwavering resolve to advance what he considers a fundamental civil rights issue. At a rally last week, he told supporters that he has "fought long and hard to secure the same rights (for) same-sex couples that are offered to married men and women." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Yesterday I began this series by reviewing a debate on same-sex marriage between Senator Leach and his colleague, Senator John Eichelberger. Senator Eichelberger represents the 30th district in western Pennsylvania. He wants to give Pennsylvania voters opportunity to approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (SB 707).
Senator Eichelberger has agreed to favor this site with a statement of his reasons for (SB 707), and I look forward to his future contribution. In this post, I am pleased to present comments by Senator Leach. He has revised comments he initially prepared not long after voters in Maine reversed the state's marriage-equality law by approving Question 1. Of course, his comments have bearing on Eichelberger's goal to "let voters decide" whether same-sex couples may marry.
Senator Daylin Leach: Putting Marriage To A Vote
When you follow politics closely, every election night comes with its exhilarating wins and heartbreaking losses. Some years there are more of one than the other, but every year is, to some extent, a mixed bag. Last year, the toughest loss for me to watch was the decision by the voters of Maine to (albeit narrowly) overturn by referendum the legislature's legalization of same-sex marriage.
As a strong supporter of same sex marriage, I was naturally disappointed with the outcome of the election. As I watched the final results came in, however I found myself feeling disquiet beyond that usually elicited by being on the short end of a vote. Something seemed fundamentally wrong to me about the process itself.
At first I thought that my unease was caused by my general antipathy towards government by referendum. I believe we should elect people whose judgment we trust and assign to them the full-time task of studying issues, going to hearings, meeting with stakeholders, participating in debates and coming to the best solution. This seems to me far preferable to distilling complex issues down to one line on a ballot, to be decided in a moment, with no study, by people who often came to vote for things completely unrelated to that issue.
Referendum also makes one of the most important legislative functions, compromise, impossible. If I see a ballot initiative asking if I want to spend $10 million on education, I may think that's too high. But I could support an additional $5 million. In the legislative process, that lower, more reasonable figure might actually be the final product. In a referendum, it's all or nothing, guaranteeing extreme results that up to 49% of the population never buy into.
Finally, voters don't have to square the circle. For example, in states with referendum provisions, voters routinely vote to both cut their taxes and increase spending on services they like on the same day. Unlike the legislature, voters don't have to make it all add up, which can lead to budgetary disaster.
Yet, as I thought it through, I found my concerns went deeper. There is something profoundly wrong about putting the basic human rights of a minority up to a vote of the majority. Rights are rights, whether or not the majority agrees with them. And while there may be an argument (a weak one, as I've explained) for voting on a given tax, or whether to build a highway, individual rights belong to the individual, not 51% of the community.
For instance, should we put what God you can pray to up to a vote? How about whether or not a person has the right to advocate a certain position on an issue, or whether or not they have a right to remain silent if arrested? Maybe we could vote on what books can be read, or whether married couples can use contraception? Obviously, most of us would recoil from such suggestions.
We can examine recent history to see how such votes might go: fifty years ago, if we had put desegregating public schools up to a vote in the South - or much of the North for that matter - would it have passed? How about allowing African Americans to drink out of Whites-Only water-fountains? Even in the context of marriage, at one time, a vote on whether one could marry outside their race would have lost overwhelmingly in much of the country. In some places, it might still lose today.
So what troubles me is that it seems incongruent, and frankly, a little icky to have majorities decide whether a minority is entitled to their human rights. It would, in concept, be like having white people vote on whether black people could sit in the front of the bus, or having Christians vote on whether Muslims can pray publicly. I'd like to think that - in this day and age - those votes would go well.. Even so, it still wouldn't feel like the right thing to do.
It is estimated that 3% of Mainers are gay. Therefore, 97% of the people, whose own lives are utterly unaffected by the status of same-sex marriage, got to give thumbs up or thumbs down on someone else's marriage. Marriage was called by the United States Supreme Court "fundamental to our very existence." Yet gay people are denied the right to marry because a slim majority of straight people don't feel like giving it to them. That process, more than the result, should make all of us, and our spouses, lose some sleep tonight.
Senator Eichelberger has agreed to favor this site with a statement of his reasons for (SB 707), and I look forward to his future contribution. In this post, I am pleased to present comments by Senator Leach. He has revised comments he initially prepared not long after voters in Maine reversed the state's marriage-equality law by approving Question 1. Of course, his comments have bearing on Eichelberger's goal to "let voters decide" whether same-sex couples may marry.
Senator Daylin Leach: Putting Marriage To A Vote
When you follow politics closely, every election night comes with its exhilarating wins and heartbreaking losses. Some years there are more of one than the other, but every year is, to some extent, a mixed bag. Last year, the toughest loss for me to watch was the decision by the voters of Maine to (albeit narrowly) overturn by referendum the legislature's legalization of same-sex marriage.
As a strong supporter of same sex marriage, I was naturally disappointed with the outcome of the election. As I watched the final results came in, however I found myself feeling disquiet beyond that usually elicited by being on the short end of a vote. Something seemed fundamentally wrong to me about the process itself.
At first I thought that my unease was caused by my general antipathy towards government by referendum. I believe we should elect people whose judgment we trust and assign to them the full-time task of studying issues, going to hearings, meeting with stakeholders, participating in debates and coming to the best solution. This seems to me far preferable to distilling complex issues down to one line on a ballot, to be decided in a moment, with no study, by people who often came to vote for things completely unrelated to that issue.
Referendum also makes one of the most important legislative functions, compromise, impossible. If I see a ballot initiative asking if I want to spend $10 million on education, I may think that's too high. But I could support an additional $5 million. In the legislative process, that lower, more reasonable figure might actually be the final product. In a referendum, it's all or nothing, guaranteeing extreme results that up to 49% of the population never buy into.
Finally, voters don't have to square the circle. For example, in states with referendum provisions, voters routinely vote to both cut their taxes and increase spending on services they like on the same day. Unlike the legislature, voters don't have to make it all add up, which can lead to budgetary disaster.
Yet, as I thought it through, I found my concerns went deeper. There is something profoundly wrong about putting the basic human rights of a minority up to a vote of the majority. Rights are rights, whether or not the majority agrees with them. And while there may be an argument (a weak one, as I've explained) for voting on a given tax, or whether to build a highway, individual rights belong to the individual, not 51% of the community.
For instance, should we put what God you can pray to up to a vote? How about whether or not a person has the right to advocate a certain position on an issue, or whether or not they have a right to remain silent if arrested? Maybe we could vote on what books can be read, or whether married couples can use contraception? Obviously, most of us would recoil from such suggestions.
We can examine recent history to see how such votes might go: fifty years ago, if we had put desegregating public schools up to a vote in the South - or much of the North for that matter - would it have passed? How about allowing African Americans to drink out of Whites-Only water-fountains? Even in the context of marriage, at one time, a vote on whether one could marry outside their race would have lost overwhelmingly in much of the country. In some places, it might still lose today.
So what troubles me is that it seems incongruent, and frankly, a little icky to have majorities decide whether a minority is entitled to their human rights. It would, in concept, be like having white people vote on whether black people could sit in the front of the bus, or having Christians vote on whether Muslims can pray publicly. I'd like to think that - in this day and age - those votes would go well.. Even so, it still wouldn't feel like the right thing to do.
It is estimated that 3% of Mainers are gay. Therefore, 97% of the people, whose own lives are utterly unaffected by the status of same-sex marriage, got to give thumbs up or thumbs down on someone else's marriage. Marriage was called by the United States Supreme Court "fundamental to our very existence." Yet gay people are denied the right to marry because a slim majority of straight people don't feel like giving it to them. That process, more than the result, should make all of us, and our spouses, lose some sleep tonight.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Opposing measures by two Pennyslvania state Senators on same-sex marriage: Part 1 in a series
Last year, Senator Daylin Leach became the first state legislator in Pennsylvania to introduce marriage-equality legislation (SB 935). His colleague, state Senator John Eichelberger, has recently introduced a resolution (SB 707) calling for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, even though Pennsylvania is one of 45 states that already bans same-sex marriage by statute (23 Pa.C.S.A. § 1704).
In 2006, Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania tried to make a ban part of the state constitution, and they tried to do so again in 2008. A year later, Eichleberger proposed (permanent link) re-introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Having acted on his proposal, he now joins legislators in New Mexico, Indiana, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Iowa who seek legislative approval of amendments to "defend marriage," and voter adoption of the amendments.
This is the first part in a series on why Senators Leach and Eichelberger have pursued their rival measures. I will summarize their debate on a June 19, 2009, program of WHYY Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane. I have the honor of a guest contribution from Senator Leach, and a tentative commitment for a guest contribution from Senator Eichelberger. I am still hopeful that Senator Eichelberger will participate. A second part will follow tomorrow, featuring commentary by Senator Leach. He will explain why voters should not be allowed to determine whether same-sex couples have a right to marry.
In the WHYY debate, Eichleberger expressed his concern that the ACLU, or other advocacy organization, will represent Pennsylvanian same-sex couples in a lawsuit to overturn the state DOMA. He did not identify any plans of a lawsuit, and he does not expect one to succeed, but to prevent a challenge based on state law, he thinks that Pennsylvania must add the ban to the state constitution. He repeatedly derided "activist courts" as those that have upheld marriage equality under their respective state constitutions. (These states include Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and - until Prop. 8 - California.)
Eichelberger believes that heterosexual marriage represents a "proven model" of stability for families and of benefits to society. He referred to a number of studies showing that children do best with a mom and dad as parents, and that divorce and "out-of-wedlock" births have increased in "Scandinavian countries" with legalized same-sex marriage. He also believes that marriage equality for same-sex couples entails marriage equality for polygamy. Finally, he holds that same-sex relationships represent "lifestyle" choices that the state should not sanction.
Leach praised Eichelberger as a friend and as one of the smartest members of the state Senate, even if he finds that Eichelberger has positioned himself on "the wrong side of history." Leach made an impassioned, eloquent case for marriage equality. He compares discrimination against same-sex couples with prior discrimination against interracial couples, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court - then considered an "activist court" - invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in 1967. [Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)] He observes that the same objections once raised against interracial couples have now been raised against same-sex couples. [footnote 1]
Having tried to exhaust research on the subject, Leach found that that same-sex couples are no less capable of parenting than opposite-sex couples. He challenged his colleague to identify the studies he relies on for his claims about heterosexual child rearing and adverse effects of same-sex marriage. Leach argued that same-sex marriages would bring the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages do; that the current ban harms same-sex parents who would otherwise marry and their children; that sexual orientation does not depend on a deliberative choice but on a person's core identity; and that society should encourage stable, monogamous relationships regardless of sexual orientation.
Of course, my summary of the debate represents no substitute for listening to it. Eichelberger strikes me as a very able advocate for "traditional marriage," capitalizing on divided public opinion. Leach, on the other hand, seeks to build public support for marriage equality. He rejects civil unions even as an interim alternative to marriage, because they would "stigmatize" same-sex couples and perpetuate their inequality. He sees his legislation as a hopeful part of a larger civil rights "struggle."
Leach said during the program that voter majorities must not be allowed to deprive unpopular minorities of fundamental rights, including the right to marry. Tomorrow's post will include Leach's comments on just that issue - comments he prepared in the aftermath of Maine's referendum on Question 1. And I very much hope that Senator Eichelberger will honor this site with his comments.
Footnote 1
See also: Gregory Johnson, We’ve Heard this Before: The Legacy of Interracial Marriage Bans and the Implications for Today’s Marriage Equality Debates, 34 Vt. L. Rev. 277 (2009)
In 2006, Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania tried to make a ban part of the state constitution, and they tried to do so again in 2008. A year later, Eichleberger proposed (permanent link) re-introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Having acted on his proposal, he now joins legislators in New Mexico, Indiana, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Iowa who seek legislative approval of amendments to "defend marriage," and voter adoption of the amendments.
This is the first part in a series on why Senators Leach and Eichelberger have pursued their rival measures. I will summarize their debate on a June 19, 2009, program of WHYY Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane. I have the honor of a guest contribution from Senator Leach, and a tentative commitment for a guest contribution from Senator Eichelberger. I am still hopeful that Senator Eichelberger will participate. A second part will follow tomorrow, featuring commentary by Senator Leach. He will explain why voters should not be allowed to determine whether same-sex couples have a right to marry.
In the WHYY debate, Eichleberger expressed his concern that the ACLU, or other advocacy organization, will represent Pennsylvanian same-sex couples in a lawsuit to overturn the state DOMA. He did not identify any plans of a lawsuit, and he does not expect one to succeed, but to prevent a challenge based on state law, he thinks that Pennsylvania must add the ban to the state constitution. He repeatedly derided "activist courts" as those that have upheld marriage equality under their respective state constitutions. (These states include Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and - until Prop. 8 - California.)
Eichelberger believes that heterosexual marriage represents a "proven model" of stability for families and of benefits to society. He referred to a number of studies showing that children do best with a mom and dad as parents, and that divorce and "out-of-wedlock" births have increased in "Scandinavian countries" with legalized same-sex marriage. He also believes that marriage equality for same-sex couples entails marriage equality for polygamy. Finally, he holds that same-sex relationships represent "lifestyle" choices that the state should not sanction.
Leach praised Eichelberger as a friend and as one of the smartest members of the state Senate, even if he finds that Eichelberger has positioned himself on "the wrong side of history." Leach made an impassioned, eloquent case for marriage equality. He compares discrimination against same-sex couples with prior discrimination against interracial couples, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court - then considered an "activist court" - invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in 1967. [Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)] He observes that the same objections once raised against interracial couples have now been raised against same-sex couples. [footnote 1]
Having tried to exhaust research on the subject, Leach found that that same-sex couples are no less capable of parenting than opposite-sex couples. He challenged his colleague to identify the studies he relies on for his claims about heterosexual child rearing and adverse effects of same-sex marriage. Leach argued that same-sex marriages would bring the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages do; that the current ban harms same-sex parents who would otherwise marry and their children; that sexual orientation does not depend on a deliberative choice but on a person's core identity; and that society should encourage stable, monogamous relationships regardless of sexual orientation.
Of course, my summary of the debate represents no substitute for listening to it. Eichelberger strikes me as a very able advocate for "traditional marriage," capitalizing on divided public opinion. Leach, on the other hand, seeks to build public support for marriage equality. He rejects civil unions even as an interim alternative to marriage, because they would "stigmatize" same-sex couples and perpetuate their inequality. He sees his legislation as a hopeful part of a larger civil rights "struggle."
Leach said during the program that voter majorities must not be allowed to deprive unpopular minorities of fundamental rights, including the right to marry. Tomorrow's post will include Leach's comments on just that issue - comments he prepared in the aftermath of Maine's referendum on Question 1. And I very much hope that Senator Eichelberger will honor this site with his comments.
Footnote 1
See also: Gregory Johnson, We’ve Heard this Before: The Legacy of Interracial Marriage Bans and the Implications for Today’s Marriage Equality Debates, 34 Vt. L. Rev. 277 (2009)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Roundup of recent news and commentary
Perry case
Debate continues on the manufactured non-issue of Judge Vaugn Walker's sexual orientation. Readers who have more patience than I do for such debates can read the statement by the National Organization for Marriage, as reproduced by journalist Karen Ocamb. Law professor Arthur Leonard explains why Walker's sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Constitutional amendments - Iowa and New Hampshire
Republican legislators in Iowa failed in a procedural maneuver to force a vote on a proposed super-DOMA amendment (Iowa S.J.R. 2001 / Iowa H.J.R. 2001). They seek legislative approval so that voters have opportunity to invalidate Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). For more on this effort, see the Daily Iowan.
The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee recommends that the House reject CACR 28, a resolution for a constitutional amendment that would invalidate the state's marriage-equality law. (WMUR New Hampshire / AP)
Marriage equality - D.C. and Pennsylvania
Last week, the D.C. Elections and Ethics Board ruled that a proposed referendum on the District's marriage equality law [engrossed version] violates the Human Rights Act (HRA). The Alliance Defense Fund announces that it has appealed the ruling in D.C. Superior Court, despite two prior Court decisions upholding the Board's determination that initiatives on marriage equality violate the HRA. OneNewsNow.com reports on this latest lawsuit, and law professor Howard Friedman discusses it at Religion Clause. ADF attorney Tim Tracey explains that it "is yet another appeal to the DC Superior Court in the hopes of vindicating the people's right to vote."
In Pennsylvania, state Senator Daylin Leach addressed a rally of marriage-equality supporters at the state capitol. (Post-Gazette Harrisburg) Last year, he became the first state legislator to introduce marriage-equality legislation (SB 935) His colleague, state Senator John Eichelberger, opposes same-sex marriage, and has recently introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Domestic parternships - New Mexico and President Obama
A domestic partnership bill (SB 183) in New Mexico remains on hold in the state Senate Finance Committee until the legislature can pass a budget. (New Mexico Independent),
Law student Gideon Alpers discusses President Obama's executive order granting limited domestic partnership benefits to federal employees.
Debate continues on the manufactured non-issue of Judge Vaugn Walker's sexual orientation. Readers who have more patience than I do for such debates can read the statement by the National Organization for Marriage, as reproduced by journalist Karen Ocamb. Law professor Arthur Leonard explains why Walker's sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Constitutional amendments - Iowa and New Hampshire
Republican legislators in Iowa failed in a procedural maneuver to force a vote on a proposed super-DOMA amendment (Iowa S.J.R. 2001 / Iowa H.J.R. 2001). They seek legislative approval so that voters have opportunity to invalidate Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). For more on this effort, see the Daily Iowan.
The New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee recommends that the House reject CACR 28, a resolution for a constitutional amendment that would invalidate the state's marriage-equality law. (WMUR New Hampshire / AP)
Marriage equality - D.C. and Pennsylvania
Last week, the D.C. Elections and Ethics Board ruled that a proposed referendum on the District's marriage equality law [engrossed version] violates the Human Rights Act (HRA). The Alliance Defense Fund announces that it has appealed the ruling in D.C. Superior Court, despite two prior Court decisions upholding the Board's determination that initiatives on marriage equality violate the HRA. OneNewsNow.com reports on this latest lawsuit, and law professor Howard Friedman discusses it at Religion Clause. ADF attorney Tim Tracey explains that it "is yet another appeal to the DC Superior Court in the hopes of vindicating the people's right to vote."
In Pennsylvania, state Senator Daylin Leach addressed a rally of marriage-equality supporters at the state capitol. (Post-Gazette Harrisburg) Last year, he became the first state legislator to introduce marriage-equality legislation (SB 935) His colleague, state Senator John Eichelberger, opposes same-sex marriage, and has recently introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
Domestic parternships - New Mexico and President Obama
A domestic partnership bill (SB 183) in New Mexico remains on hold in the state Senate Finance Committee until the legislature can pass a budget. (New Mexico Independent),
Law student Gideon Alpers discusses President Obama's executive order granting limited domestic partnership benefits to federal employees.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Marriage equality legislation in Pennsylvania faces difficult challenges
01/08/10 Philly.com:
On June 5th, Pennsylvania Senator Daylin Leach introduced marriage equality legislation, but it remains on hold in the state Senate Judiciary Committee. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on a lack of popular support for marriarge equality, and a recent history of legislative attempts to reinforce the state DOMA.
On June 5th, Pennsylvania Senator Daylin Leach introduced marriage equality legislation, but it remains on hold in the state Senate Judiciary Committee. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on a lack of popular support for marriarge equality, and a recent history of legislative attempts to reinforce the state DOMA.
Leach predicted, however, that public support would increase as other states slowly joined those recognizing the marriage of same-sex partners. "In the long term, it is inevitable," he said. "When you look at the history of any civil rights movement in this country, there is always resistance at first."
Friday, June 19, 2009
Two Pennsylvania Senators debate same-sex marriage on NPR station WHYY
06/19/09 WHYY Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane:
On June 4th, Pennsylvania State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, introduced Senate Bill 935, which would confer state recognition of same-sex marriages licensed in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
This program, in the first hour, engages Senator Leach and another state Senator in a debate on same-sex marriage. Here is the program description:
Our guests have two dueling bills in the state legislature. State Senator DAYLIN LEACH, a Democrat representing Montgomery County, has introduced a bill to amend the Pennsylvania ban on same-sex marriage to offer “full and equal marriage rights” to same-sex couples. And State Senator JOHN EICHELBERGER, a Republican representing Blair County, has introduced a bill amending the state Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. Listen to the mp3
On June 4th, Pennsylvania State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, introduced Senate Bill 935, which would confer state recognition of same-sex marriages licensed in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
This program, in the first hour, engages Senator Leach and another state Senator in a debate on same-sex marriage. Here is the program description:
Our guests have two dueling bills in the state legislature. State Senator DAYLIN LEACH, a Democrat representing Montgomery County, has introduced a bill to amend the Pennsylvania ban on same-sex marriage to offer “full and equal marriage rights” to same-sex couples. And State Senator JOHN EICHELBERGER, a Republican representing Blair County, has introduced a bill amending the state Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. Listen to the mp3
Monday, June 15, 2009
Gay marriage up for debate in Pennsylvania
06/13/09 The Sentinel Online (source: ADF Alliance Alert)
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, last week introduced Senate Bill 935 that would offer “full and equal marriage rights” to same-sex couples in the state and legally recognize those marriages performed in other states.
On June 19th, Senator Leach will debate Senator John H. Eichelberger on the legislation. Section 3 of SB 935 has a provision on religious liberty that the First Amendment makes redundant. Eichelberger, an opponent of same-sex marriage, will find the provision easy to attack, and with good reason. A stronger remedy - of the kind that New Hampshire's recent law provides - would undercut political opposition, without compromising support from advocates of same-sex marriage. (For example, Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, told the NY Times that the stronger religious-liberty exemptions were "no big deal.")
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, last week introduced Senate Bill 935 that would offer “full and equal marriage rights” to same-sex couples in the state and legally recognize those marriages performed in other states.
On June 19th, Senator Leach will debate Senator John H. Eichelberger on the legislation. Section 3 of SB 935 has a provision on religious liberty that the First Amendment makes redundant. Eichelberger, an opponent of same-sex marriage, will find the provision easy to attack, and with good reason. A stronger remedy - of the kind that New Hampshire's recent law provides - would undercut political opposition, without compromising support from advocates of same-sex marriage. (For example, Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, told the NY Times that the stronger religious-liberty exemptions were "no big deal.")
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Pennsylvania Senate to consider conflicting same-sex marriage measures
06/03/09 Philadelphia Inquirer:
"Nothing in this title shall be construed to compel a religious sect to perform same-sex marriages."
This provision will likely be amended, if the legislation gains traction in the state Senate.
Senator Eichelberger's "Marriage Protection Amendment" has been introduced as S707; it will become available next week through the state legislature's website. Senator Eichelberg's staff told me that it is modeled after Arizona's "Marriage Protection Amendment." (Art. XXX, Sec. 1, added by Prop. 102)
05/27/09 press release by Senator Daylin Leach:
HARRISBURG, May 27, 2009 – Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Delaware/Montgomery, today announced plans to introduce a bill that would offer full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania. Under the new legislation, Pennsylvania would also recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.
While the bill would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction, Leach said his legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.
Hoping to capture the pro-gay-marriage momentum in other state legislatures, Sen. Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery) today introduced the state's first bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
Meanwhile, a colleague across the aisle, Sen. John Eichelberger (R., Blair), is preparing to introduce a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, to prevent court decisions, such as the recent one in Iowa, allowing gay people the right to marry.
Senator Leach's bill is S935. It was just given a bill number today; the electronic version is not yet available through the state legislature's website. Here is the bill, which I received from the Senator's very helpful staff. The bill has a provision for religious liberty that already has ample legal protection. So it does not begin to cover the scope of religious-conscience exemption that same-sex marriage legislature should include, according to several legal scholars on religious liberty and the law. The provision reads:"Nothing in this title shall be construed to compel a religious sect to perform same-sex marriages."
This provision will likely be amended, if the legislation gains traction in the state Senate.
Senator Eichelberger's "Marriage Protection Amendment" has been introduced as S707; it will become available next week through the state legislature's website. Senator Eichelberg's staff told me that it is modeled after Arizona's "Marriage Protection Amendment." (Art. XXX, Sec. 1, added by Prop. 102)
05/27/09 press release by Senator Daylin Leach:
HARRISBURG, May 27, 2009 – Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Delaware/Montgomery, today announced plans to introduce a bill that would offer full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania. Under the new legislation, Pennsylvania would also recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.
While the bill would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction, Leach said his legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
