The Digital Collegian - Published independently by students at Penn State
NEWS
[ Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 ]

Marriage legislation held until January

Collegian Staff Writer

A state representative who had sponsored legislation that would prohibit certain benefits for same-sex partners and unmarried heterosexual partners will have to wait until the next session in January before the Legislature considers a similar proposal.

The proposal by Rep. Mark McNaughton, R-Susquehanna, was passed over earlier this week and Larry Frankel, American Civil Liberties Union spokesman, said he was content with the outcome.

"We're pleased with the fact that the issue is done for the session because we thought the amendment was unnecessary," Frankel said. "Pennsylvania already has a Defense of Marriage Act."

McNaughton had been accusing Gov. Ed Rendell of overstepping his authority by granting gay and lesbian state employees benefits such as the right to take sick and family leave to care for partners.

Rendell spokesman Chuck Ardo denied the allegation, calling it "clearly indefensible."

"The benefits extended to state employees in the last contract were products of negotiations between the state and unions representing those employees," Ardo said. "There was a give and take on numerous issues and amongst those were issues affecting non-traditional living arrangements."

Voters in 11 states voted on Election Day to amend their state constitutions to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

The states included Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.

GRAPHIC: Sara Parris/Collegian
GRAPHIC: Sara Parris/Collegian

Pennsylvania voters did not have the opportunity to voice their opinions on gay marriage on the ballot, but state lawmakers are searching for a resolution within the commonwealth.

Gay marriage was illegal before the amendments were passed, but supporters of the amendments saw them as necessary because they would guard against state court rulings like the one in Massachusetts a year ago that legalized same-sex marriage.

Although Pennsylvania doesn't have an amendment banning gay marriage, it does have the Defense of Marriage Act.

"We already have a law that defines that marriage is a union between a man and a woman," State Sen. Jake Corman, R-Centre said. "If we do end up getting a Constitutional amendment, then that will apply for Pennsylvania."

Corman said there are no bills currently in the Legislature being considered, although there are ideas always being thrown around.

He added that he believes this is an issue that should be decided at the state level.

"Normally, I wouldn't be in support of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but when you have a runaway judicial branch with activist judges, it's sometimes forced to go that way," Corman said.

He said Massachusetts was an example of a state whose judges' behavior was not proper.

Centre County Republicans Chairman Glenn Thompson agrees that the judges in some parts of the country have had questionable rulings.

"When we have rogue judges who try to change an institution that has withstood the test of time, it's wrong," he said.

Thompson said it is his personal belief that a large number of Pennsylvania citizens would be in support of an amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Centre County Democrats Chairman Bob Shepherd said he think it's not the job of government to decide what constitutes a marriage.

"It's likely that the Republicans would think of something like this," Shepherd said. "We have just enough fair-minded liberals who won't let this happen."

 



TOP  HOME
Blogs  About  Contact Us  Back Issues  Advertising 

Copyright © 2009 Collegian Inc.