Lawmakers and gay-rights advocates fired opening salvos Tuesday in a battle over how marriage should be defined in Pennsylvania's constitution.

Legislators led by state Rep. Scott Boyd, a Lampeter Republican, introduced a House bill to begin amending the the state constitution so it would prohibit state and local governments from recognizing any marriage other than "between one man and one woman."

"The intent of this is not meant to be discriminatory," Boyd said during a press conference in the state Capitol rotunda. "This is about the people of Pennsylvania defining what a marriage is and to recognize it as a union between a man and a woman."

State Senate Republicans moved quickly Tuesday as Sen. Bob Regolla of Westmoreland County announced he would sponsor a bill identical to the one Boyd is proposing.

Opponents of the bill from Harrisburg to Lancaster to Philadelphia vowed to show the proposed amendment as contradictory, anti-family and a measure of discrimination.

"The question remains — how does that strengthen families?" said Deborah Coggins, pastor of Mountville-based Vision of Hope MCC. "How does that help communities live better by destroying in some sense the rights of a minority population?"

To amend the state constitution, both legislative chambers have to approve identical bills in consecutive sessions. Then, the proposed amendment would be put to a statewide voter referendum.

The earliest the amendment could appear on a ballot would be fall 2007.

Several conservative family organizations joined Boyd, about 20 other lawmakers and scores of residents during the press conference in support of the proposed amendment.

"Marriage is about celebrating the diversity of male and female, and the vital and distinct role they play in the nurture, care and education of children," Pennsylvania Family Institute President Michael Geer said.

However, some opponents said the proposed amendment — in particular a clause that would outlaw the creation or recognition of "a legal status identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals — also could mean a loss of health care, pensions, visiting rights and other benefits for single-parent families and nonmarried couples.

"There is something disingenuous about the authors of this bill," state Rep. Steven Stetler, the Democratic Policy Chair, said. "Families don't always mean marriages. You can have a family and be divorced. You can be a single parent. That's still a family."

The measure propels Pennsylvania into the debate over what constitutes a marriage that has embroiled at least 19 other states.

On Friday, a Maryland Circuit Court judge struck down a state law defining marriage as a male-female union.

State Senate Majority Leader David "Chip" Brightbill said the Maryland decision makes a constitutional amendment urgent in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania's 1996 law — explicitly banning same-sex marriages by putting parameters around male-female partnerships — may not stand a court challenge, he said.

"So the question we must answer is this: Is the protection of marriage important enough to put into the state constitution?" Brightbill said. "I say it absolutely is."

The 1996 law passed by a 43-5 vote in the Senate and a 189-13 vote in the House.

Among the amendment supporters at the Capitol Tuesday was Chris Buonomo of Narvon, a 43-year-old mother of three children, who accompanied her at the press conference.

"We have lost a sense of absolute rights and absolute wrongs," Buonomo said. "Any authority that exists is from God, and ultimately it is God that defines between right and wrong."

Stacey Sobel, executive director of the Philadephia-based Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, said her organization will work with others to mount an education campaign to reach out to lawmakers and voters.

"If we want to protect families, we don't need an amendment like this," Sobel said. "This amendment is not going to stop someone from getting divorced; it's not going to help feed, clothe or educate anyone's child."

Supporting the proposed amendment are state Sens. Brightbill and Noah Wenger and state Reps. Gibson C. Armstrong, Tom Creighton, Dave Hickernell, Gordon Denlinger, Roy Baldwin and Katie True.

"Regardless of what side you are on, you get a vote," True said.

State Rep. Michael Sturla, a Lancaster city Democrat, and state Sen. Gibson Armstrong, a Refton Republican, were not available for comment Tuesday. blog comments powered by Disqus