Civil Unions for Pennsylvania?

While Maggie Gallagher's NAM (National organisation Against Marriage) continues to insist that the momentum towards marriage equality has been reversed, the evidence contradicts her.  The much vaunted New Hampshire town hall meetings to begin a process to undo last year's legislation turned out to be a damp squib. In Maryland, moves to impeach the AG for his opinion on recognising out of state nuptials were rejected. In Iowa, on the anniversary of the recognition of marriage for all, attempts to ignite a popular repeal are going nowhere.  In California, opinion polls now show a clear majority in favour of marriage, and the repeal of prop 8 is now just a matter of timing the ballot. Elsewhere across the globe, advances for marriage are seen in more and more countries, including somewhat unexpectedly, Slovenia, Albania, Cyprus and Nepal. It is not the movement towards marriage equality that has stalled, but the attempts to impose constitutional bans.

Meanwhile, in the Pennsylvania  state legislature, the recent failure of attempts to ban marriage have now been followed by an attempt to introduce civil unions.  State rep Mark Cohen says he has 24 co-sponsors signed up, with another 10 "considering".  Even so, he believes that his chances of success are low - this year. I like this approach, which is more honest than sitting on bills until passage can be assured. Bringing a bill to the vote is a way to force opponents to crawl out of the woodwork and declare their opposition publicly - and may even flush out some surprising supporters. More importantly, the process begins public discussion.  If the bill does not pass this year, it will be re-introduced repeatedly until it does - and will then pave the way for full marriage.

As in California and Maine,New York and New Jersey, the disappointments of the past eighteen months will be overcome.

"To those who persevere, failure is only temporary".

Full marriage recognition is on its way. The only real question is - "When?"

From Philadelphia Gay News:

Civil-union bill to hit PA House

Small Victory in Pennsylvania.

Not exactly a step forward here, but a backward move averted.  In an unusual move, Democratic members of a Pennsylvania Senate committee held firm against a proposal to write a marriage ban into the state constitution - and three out of nine Repugs broke ranks to kill the proposal.  There have been increasing signs for months that  this is no longer the vote getter for the GOP that it once was, and this confirms that some moderate GOP politicos are starting to find anti-gay bigotry is becoming politically toxic instead.

For all Maggie Gallagher's triumphalism last November over the "victories" in Maine, and later NY and NJ, it is worth remembering that these were essentially "as you were", stalling decisions. The cause of full marriage equality has yet to win at the ballot box, although Washington came close with its "everything but the name" alternative, and there have been the well known victories in the courts and the state legislatures.  For the opposition, it is now some substantial time since her NAM (National organisation Against Marriage) had any success in pushing back existing marriage or civil union rights, anywhere.

This does not yet leave Pennyslvania in the clear: the bill could conceivably still be revived, and if not there remains on the statute book a ban in law, if not in the state constitution.  Still, stalemate is better than a clear  backward step, and local activists will be pleased at the evidence that GOP opposition is no longer monolithic. Perhaps it is now time to develop a strategy, even along term strategy, to change the existing law.

From On Top Magazine:

3 Republicans Cross Aisle To Defeat PA Gay Marriage Ban

Three Republican senators crossed the aisle Tuesday to help defeat a Pennsylvania resolution that sought to define marriage as a heterosexual union in the state constitution.

The 8-to-6 vote in favor of tabling the measure in the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee leaves the joint resolution on limited life support.

Senator John H. Eichelberger, Jr. first announced he would sponsor the resolution in May of last year but postponed its introduction until January due to the economy, the conservative lawmaker said.

Eichelberger's resolution would insert the following language into the state constitution: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”

But three Republican and five Democratic lawmakers disagreed. Joining all the committee's Democrats in killing the resolution were Republicans Pat Browne, Jane Earll and Mary Jo White.

(Read More)