Fumo foils the marriage amendment
May 13th, 2008 5:09 pm · 6 comments
An interesting piece by Pete DeCoursey of Capitol Wire running in tomorrow’s Intell about how Democratic state Sen. Vince Fumo of Philadelphia essentially sunk the proposed marriage amendment, championed by Lancaster County’s state Sen. Mike Brubaker.
According to DeCoursey, Fumo had corralled 30 votes in the 50-member Senate, dominated by Republicans, to eliminate the “functional equivalent” language from the proposed amendment; essentially, the words which would have banned civil unions in Pennsylvania. Some argued the “functional equivalent” language would have gone so far as to destroy rights unmarried couples have in terms of adoptions, visitation, power-of-attorney and so on. The possibility of removing “functional equivalent” from the bill and not the threat of a defeat by House Democratsled to Brubaker tabling the proposed amendment, DeCoursey writes.
If Brubaker’s bill would have simply defined marriage as a heterosexual union and left the issue of civil unions alone, the Senate would have passed such a bill. DeCoursey quotes an unnamed GOP Senator as saying: “I am fine with defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. I am not fine with taking away rights gays have now, from the government or from their employer, because they are people.”
Read the piece tomorrow. It’s an illustration of effective ol’ fashion political maneuvering by a minority party.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Marriage · Gay Rights · Pennsylvania Constitution · State Senate
There are currently 6 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogtugrad
5/13/08
9:14 PM | To me this proves that Burbaker's intent is not to "protect marriage" it is to deny gay rights. If Burbaker did not intend to deny gay rights he would not have a problem allowing the amendment to go forward without the "functional equivalent" language. |
supervenusfreak
5/13/08
9:39 PM | QUOTE(tugrad @ May 13 2008, 09:14 PM) [snapback]388770[/snapback] To me this proves that Burbaker's intent is not to "protect marriage" it is to deny gay rights. If Burbaker did not intend to deny gay rights he would not have a problem allowing the amendment to go forward without the "functional equivalent" language.
Exactly. We both know that this piece of legislation was not about "protecting" marriage as much as it was about stopping some imaginary "homosexual political agenda", and spreading fear.
Strangely enough, I came across a newsletter from one of those groups that were backing the amendment. It was quite a melange of half truths and lies, written to scare people into supporting the amendment AND donating to the cause. It reminded me of the old Jim Crow pamphlets that used to be circulated down south. |
tugrad
5/13/08
9:45 PM | QUOTE(supervenusfreak @ May 13 2008, 09:39 PM) [snapback]388777[/snapback]
Exactly. We both know that this piece of legislation was not about "protecting" marriage as much as it was about stopping some imaginary "homosexual political agenda", and spreading fear.
Strangely enough, I came across a newsletter from one of those groups that were backing the amendment. It was quite a melange of half truths and lies, written to scare people into supporting the amendment AND donating to the cause. It reminded me of the old Jim Crow pamphlets that used to be circulated down south.
I would think that conservative voters would be sick of being used by politicians. It seems that so often the politicians pick these "hot" button items because they don't trust that the voters are smart enough to respond to real issues.
Of topic, are you involved with the pride celebration? |
supervenusfreak
5/13/08
9:55 PM | QUOTE(tugrad @ May 13 2008, 09:45 PM) [snapback]388780[/snapback]
I would think that conservative voters would be sick of being used by politicians. It seems that so often the politicians pick these "hot" button items because they don't trust that the voters are smart enough to respond to real issues.
Of topic, are you involved with the pride celebration?
These are not true conservatives. True conservatives would be appalled by all of the baloney that they are trying to pass off as issues. These are neo-cons, and they are a totally different breed.
I'm not directly involved with the celebration. I wish that I had the time. But I will be there for at least part of the time, later in the afternoon. The family and I are really looking forward to it. I am hoping that some of our friends from out of town will join us too.
|
dragonrider
5/14/08
1:14 AM | Perhaps Fumo can now pass real marriage protection laws such as no more divorces except in case of adultury or violence. And pass a law bringing the christian law of stoning adulterers to the 21st century. Perhaps he can also pass a law bringing back the Old Testament pratice of polygamy. |
dragonrider
5/14/08
2:53 AM | I just read an interesting letter to the editor in the NY Times. Any convicted felon is guaranteed the right to marry even while still incarcerated. Convicted spouse abusers, convicted pedophiles, convicted serial killers, Convicted rapists while serving time can legally marry. These people marrying aparently offer no danger to the institution of marriage, but a homosexual who has commited no crime and is guilty only of loving someone of the same sex is not allowed to marry. Please explain why no one is trying to remove the rights of rapist , spouse abusers, pedophiles etc from marrying? |
View Topic | Comment on this blog
