Source: Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Allentown Morning Call, Harrisburg Patriot-News, Lancaster New Era, Philadelphia Inquirer, Harrisburg Intelligencer-Journal
HARRISBURG, Penn. -- Lawyers, religious leaders and advocates for gays and lesbians faced off Tuesday in one of the most highly charged Senate Appropriations Committee hearings in recent memory.
At issue was a proposal to strengthen the state's ban on marriage equality by placing it in the commonwealth's constitution along with a provision to prevent other kinds of same-sex unions that are "functionally equivalent to marriage."
Opponents cried discrimination and attorneys on both sides argued over whether a constitutional amendment is necessary when Pennsylvania already has a statute preventing same-sex marriage.
Many of those speaking in favor of the measure invoked Bible passages, but the president of a theological college called the amendment "aggressive in its language of invalidation."
Riess W. Potterveld, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary, testified that the amendment would be "a step back into what I will call 'worst public practices'; because it is essentially about the restriction of rights, the enforcement of inequality without any basis other than fear, prejudice and hostility."
In his stinging remarks, Potterveld said that the measure's simple language "conceals a wellspring of toxic and prejudicial feeling," reports Lancaster New Era.
"...To be honest, I cannot think of one good thing that would come from passage of this amendment; my hope is that reason will prevail and that the measure will be defeated," said Potterveld.
The legislation before the panel would add these 28 words to the constitution: "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."
Throughout the hearing, advocates and opponents interrupted testimony with applause and heckling so often that committee Chairman Gib Armstrong, R-Lancaster, struggled to keep control of the hearing with the raucous crowd's outbursts.
"We do believe this destructive and flawed amendment could (harm) so many lives, young and old," said Karen Buck, executive director of SeniorLaw Center in Philadelphia.
Advocates for the proposed amendment, however, said the 27 states that currently have similar marriage amendments in their constitutions have experienced no such problems. They said the proposed amendment doesn't change current law, which already bans gay marriage.
Teresa Stanton Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, called such concerns "phantom fears."
"The reality of the situation is that gay-rights activists are persistently demanding the courts disregard the text of the laws as well as the political will of the people in efforts to remake the institution of marriage to suit their particular political views," Collett wrote in prepared testimony delivered to the committee.
The hearing room was jammed with about 120 adults and some children, who listened to discussions about constitutional law, morality, religion and sex. Many audience members wore lime-green buttons inscribed with "Protect Marriage," while others held red signs reading "Marriage is not a gay crime."
The emotional level of the hearing escalated anytime state Sen. Vince Fumo, a veteran Philadelphia Democrat who is retiring after this session, aimed sharp questions at amendment supporters who testified.
The crowd occasionally jeered Fumo, and one man yelled, "Religious people have rights, too," prompting appropriations chairman Sen. Gibson Armstrong, a Refton Republican, to warn the crowd against unruly conduct.
That proved even more of a challenge during a lively exchange between former gubernatorial candidate Peg Luksik of the Pro-Life Coalition, who supported the amendment, and Fumo.
Luksik said marriage is an institution that "needs and deserves additional protections because of the attacks that have been made by judges across the country that have sought to redefine the institution of marriage." That's why the state's 1996 marriage-protection law is no longer enough, she said.
Fumo countered, "This amendment is attempting to formalize in the constitution discrimination against people who are of the same sex and want to live together."
Fumo also told a black pastor testifying in favor of the amendment that, if given the chance to cast secret ballots, his fellow legislators would vote to legalize slavery.
David Atkinson, a top aide to Armstrong told the Philadelphia Inquirer that those present reacted "with disbelief at what they were hearing."
"It was kind of like watching an auto wreck while standing on the curb," he said. "It's not the kind of thing that you would ever anticipate."
Fumo declined to speak with an AP reporter Wednesday outside his office, but released a statement through an aide saying that he was "obviously exaggerating" to make a point.
"I wanted people at the hearing to face the fact that denying human rights to any group, including homosexuals, at any point in our history, including in 2008, is wrong," Fumo said in the statement.
Fumo who is white, told Gilbert Coleman Jr., senior pastor of Freedom Christian Bible Fellowship in Philadelphia, that the measure under consideration would take away the rights of a minority.
"If we introduced a bill on slavery, it might pass. That doesn't make it right," said Fumo.
Coleman, who was testifying in favor of the measure, responded: "I doubt that sir."
"Oh, don't bet on it in this General Assembly," Fumo countered. "I know some people up here, especially on a secret ballot, it would be almost unanimous."
Coleman told the Philadelphia Inquirer today that the comments caught him off guard and were "misguided."
"It certainly came out of left field," he said, adding that he nonetheless was not outraged at them "because of the source where it was coming from."
Unfortunately, that exchange became a major topic in press accounts of the hearing.
Sen. Pat Browne (R., Lehigh) a member of the committee, said Fumo "let his passions get the best of him."
Asked if Fumo owes his colleagues in the House and Senate an apology, Browne said "If he is serious about those comments, then yes he does."
Fumo is retiring from the Senate this fall after 30 year in office to devote his attention to his September trial on 139 federal corruption counts.
The committee is expected to vote on the amendment next week, possibly as early as Monday. The issue was before the committee because of the $2 million cost of the advertising required as part of the constitutional amendment process.
The process involves lawmakers' approval during two separate legislative sessions and approval by a majority of voters during a referendum.
Full article: Pa. Senate holds highly charged hearing on gay marriage | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Fumo says he exaggerated by saying Pa. would pass slave law | Allentown Morning Call
Outbursts disrupt hearing | Harrisburg Patriot-News
Seminary chief: Same-sex union ban a 'step back' | Lancaster New Era
Fumo: State lawmakers would likely enact slavery | Philadelphia Inquirer
Marriage measure splits crowd | Harrisburg Intelligencer-Journal