A group of evangelists — including two local residents — who were charged with ethnic intimidation for protesting at a gay festival in Philadelphia scored a major court victory Thursday.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in a 4-1 vote, threw out language expanding the state's hate- crimes law to include crimes committed on the basis of the victim's sexual orientation or physical disabilities.

According to Thursday's ruling, the Legislature acted unconstitutionally in 2002 when it inserted an amendment expanding the state's hate-crimes law into a bill that originally dealt with criminalizing crop destruction, thereby changing the original purpose of the bill.

When members of Repent America — including Jerry Fennell Jr. of Denver and Mark Diener of Manheim Township and formerly of Ephrata — picketed and publicly preached that homosexuality was a sin at the Outfest street festival in Philadelphia in October 2004, they were arrested and charged with a felony under the amended hate-crimes law.

The charges later were dismissed by a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge on the grounds that their speech was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

But because Repent America members planned to stage similar protests and feared they would again be charged with the same crime, they filed their own lawsuit in 2005 challenging the constitutionality of the amendment to the hate-crimes law.

Judge James Gardner Colins wrote in the majority opinion Thursday that the final legislation bore no resemblance to the original bill by the time it was passed and signed into law by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker, even though both versions dealt with crime.

"We emphasize that no matter how salutary the purpose of a bill may be, it still must comport with constitutionally mandated requirements for passage," Colins wrote.

President Judge Bonnie Leadbetter dissented, but did not issue an opinion explaining why.

Diener said he was "ecstatic" that Thursday's ruling threw out the amendment. "It's a big deal to get a state law tossed. I'm praising the Lord, even with a little disbelief (that it actually happened)."

Because federal District Judge Lawrence Stengel dismissed a civil lawsuit Repent America had filed in 2005 against the City of Philadelphia involving the same incident, Diener said he wasn't sure their challenge on the constitutionality of the amendment to the hate-crimes law would be in their favor.

Fennel said that although he hadn't yet read the decision, he thought it was wonderful to get the amendment declared "null and void."

Fennel said he had hoped it would turn out this way because of the "blatant manner in the way (the legislators) passed it. You can't change (a bill's purpose) once it's been submitted, and they blatantly did that, no question about it."

The evangelists' attorney, Aaron Martin of Kennett Square, said, "We feel the court did the right thing. It upheld the constitutional requirement for passage of legislation. The court recognized the Legislature exceeded its authority in the way it treated this bill."

Martin said he is especially happy about the outcome because he was personally convinced that the process of enactment was unconstitutional.

Although it's rare that the appeals court overturns legislation on this basis, it has happened before, Martin said, as when the City of Philadelphia in 2003 challenged the way the state had tried to alter control of the governing board of the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

It was not immediately clear whether Gov. Ed Rendell's administration or the Legislature would appeal the Commonwealth Court's ruling.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office, which represents Rendell's administration in the lawsuit, said the office's lawyers were reviewing the decision and had 30 days to file an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Rendell said in a statement that the bill had passed with bipartisan support, and he urged lawmakers to approve immediately "appropriate legislation" reinstating the measure so that the safety and rights of all Pennsylvanians are protected.

"It's important to note that the Commonwealth Court's decision was based on a procedural issue and not on the substance of the amendment. It's also important to note that this legal challenge was mounted by individuals who themselves may benefit from the law's protections for religious minorities."

Jonathan Bloom, a Philadelphia attorney representing the state House, declined to comment, and Stephen C. MacNett, a lawyer for Senate Republicans, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

E-mail: lvaningen@lnpnews.com