 | PA Senate Judiciary Committee approves Marriage Protection Amendment bill
HARRISBURG — The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-4 March 18 to send SB 1250, the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, to the Senate Appropriations Committee for another vote before being sent to the full Senate.
The approval came after a day of testimony before the judiciary committee.
The bill must pass, with identical language, in the full House and full Senate in two consecutive sessions before being placed on a statewide ballot for voter approval.
Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) attorney Richard Connell of the Ball Murren and Connell law firm was one of the experts who testified March 17 at the judiciary committee hearing on SB 1250.
The bill proposes amending the state constitution with: “No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.”
Connell explained that the term “functionally equivalent” in the amendment would not prevent any employer or other organization from conferring benefits to same-sex partners or any other unmarried person.
Citing the 2004 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Devlin v. City of Philadelphia, Connell said, “Essentially, the court said the city could grant health benefits and maintain domestic partnership status for those in its employ and that the conferral of such benefits and the creation of the status was not the functional equivalent of marriage.
“The language means that the Pennsylvania courts or the General Assembly could not create a status just like marriage but by some other name, whether that might be a civil union or some other term not yet part of the popular vernacular. It does nothing more and nothing less.”
Connell added that 19 of the 27 states with marriage protection amendments prohibit marriage-like relationships that are “substantially similar” or “functionally equivalent.”
“This is not a new idea. Pennsylvania is not alone,” he said.
Connell said the amendment is not the same as Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Recently, a trial court ruled Iowa’s DOMA to be unconstitutional, he said, adding that Maryland’s DOMA was also challenged. By a narrow margin, 4-3, Maryland’s highest appellate court upheld the DOMA but noted that the legislature there was not precluded by DOMA from establishing civil unions, the functional equivalent of marriage.
“These real court decisions make it clear that only an amendment like that set forth in SB 1250 can be definitive on the subject,” Connell said.
He expressed urgency for passing the bill, citing the long process for amending the state constitution.
“We must pass this amendment now. If not, it could be several more years before citizens have the chance to vote on marriage,” he said. “By then, it could be too late.”
The PCC, the public affairs agency of the Pennsylvania Catholic bishops, is urging passage of SB 1250.
— From the PCC
For more information on the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment,
visit www.pacatholic.org. |
|