Forum allows same-sex marriage debate

The definition of marriage might be as simple as canned vegetables.

“You cannot put a… The definition of marriage might be as simple as canned vegetables.

“You cannot put a picture of corn on a can of peas and sell it as corn,” said Professor Randy Lee of Widener University School of Law in Harrisburg, Pa.

Lee used this analogy yesterday at the Allegheny County Courthouse during a senate judiciary committee public hearing on a proposed amendment to the constitution.

The amendment would define marriage as a union between “one man and one woman.”

“I wish I could say it’s a pleasure to be here today, but here we go again,” Pennsylvania Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, said at a press conference that preceded yesterday’s hearing.

The hearing was the second of three in Pennsylvania.

The first was in Harrisburg, where a third will eventually take place, said state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery.

Just a handful of supporters sat on one side of the room.

Bishop David Zubik of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh said that same-sex couples “must be respected with respect, compassion and sensitivity” but added that the fact that “marriage must be considered truly sacred seems to elude us.”

Zubik said he would defend the amendment and called marriage a “sacred covenant” and one of humanity’s oldest institutions.

The primary purpose of the amendment, said Sharon Capretto, president of the Marriage Protection Coalition of Greater Pittsburgh, is to protect the “definition of marriage, which is one man and one woman.

“There are no hidden agendas,” she said.

As a widow, Capretto said she has seen how both mothers and fathers are needed to successfully care for a child.

“When either one of them isn’t there, children are the ones who suffer,” she said.

But opponents, including Frankel, Pittsburgh Councilman Bruce Kraus, Pittsburgh City Council President Douglas Shields, and state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Allegheny, argued for the demise of the amendment.

Kraus, the first openly gay councilman in Pittsburgh, called legislating a policy to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions “homophobia, bigotry and sanctioned discrimination of a selected class of people.”

“Would they dare to legislate to deny marriage or civil union based on race, creed, age or ethnicity?” he asked the committee.

Currently, Pittsburgh legislation grants domestic partnership rights and has for 12 years, Shields said.

This proposed amendment would “trump” the older legislation, he added.

“We adopted our local anti-discrimination ordinance because we value all families,” he said.

The preceding news conference allowed the amendment’s opponents, including representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Women’s Law Project, St. Andrew’s Lutheran Church and East Liberty Presbyterian Cathedral of Hope, to speak out against it.

Proponents of the bill say they want to let the people decide, said Barb Feige of the ACLU.

“But putting people’s rights up for a vote is not the way we do things in America,” she said.

Although 27 states define marriage in their constitutions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, changing the Pennsylvania constitution won’t be easy.

Amendments to the Pennsylvania constitution may be proposed in either the Senate or the House of Representatives but must pass in both by a majority vote, according to the Pennsylvania General Assembly website.

Amendments must be passed in each of two consecutive two-year legislative sessions and then win voter approval in a statewide referendum.

This marriage amendment had its first session last year, so the earliest it could pass would be in 2009, but only if the majority of the hearing’s attendees don’t get their way.

“I will do everything possible to make sure it doesn’t see the light of day,” Frankel said.