Civil-rights attorneys, theologians and moms and dads on both sides of the gay-marriage debate clashed again in Harrisburg today as a state Senate panel heard a third round of testimony on a proposal to ban same-sex unions in the constitution.

"Clearly, what is proposed in Senate Bill 1250 is a step backward into language of denial, devaluing, delegitimizing and in its simple wording, in my opinion, conceals a wellspring of toxic and prejudicial feeling," testified Riess W. Potterveld, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary.

"The text is not neutral but rather agressive in its language of invalidation. This 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 inquality without any basis other than fear, prejudice and hostility," he said, according to prepared remarks provided to the 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 only local speaker.

The hearing on the bill, authored by Lititz-area Republican Sen. Michael W. Brubaker, was ongoing at press time before the appropriations committee.

State law already bans gay marriage. Pennsylvania passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which defines marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman.

Despite those existing statutory bans on same-sex marriages, Brubaker and other supporters of a constitutional ban have said the institution of marriage is vulnerable to attack.

"The issues presented include who determines the pinciples which govern the common life of a community or state, and what those principles should be," said Teresa Stanton Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn.

"My short answer is that the citizens and their elected representatives ultimately should determine the principles guiding our common life, not the judiciary, and the definition of marriage, as a civil institution, is a matter of foundational social order properly left to the people and their elected representatives."

James Horn, a Baptist minister from Philadelphia and a father of eight children, said the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman "means a great deal to a lot of people."

"I truly believe that unless we uphold traditional marriage and encourage mothers and fathers to take on the responsibility of rearing their children, things will only get worse, not just for Philadelphia but for all of Pennsylvania," he said. "This is not a government problem. This is a moral problem. ... This is a time we should be strengthening marriage, not redefining it."

The appropriations committee, the panel that oversees state spending, was holding its hearing because placing the question on the ballot would take taxpayer money.

Amending the constitution requires the approval by the House and Senate in two successive two-year sessions of the General Assembly and then the approval of voters in a statewide referendum. If Brubaker's measure is approved this year, the soonest it could appear on the ballot would be 2009.

A proposed amendment must be advertised for 90 days each time it is passed. The Department of State estimates each round of ads would cost about $1 million, said Armstrong aide David Atkinson.

Brubaker introduced the measure, S.B. 1250, in early February.

A similar proposal backed by Republican Rep. Scott Boyd of West Lampeter Township, however, stalled in 2006. The House and Senate — both controlled by Republicans at the time — passed conflicting versions of an amendment and could not resolve their dispute, which centered on whether it also should apply to civil unions.

While Republicans still control the Senate, they are in the minority in the House. It is unclear whether Democrats are willing to take up such a proposal in an election year.

"There are several factors intervening here," said Armstrong. "One, obviously, is the governor."

In 2006, Gov. Ed Rendell called Boyd's bill "mean spirited," "horrible" and a "total waste of time." Though the bill would not require the governor's signature for the question to be placed on the ballot, Rendell could use his influence to spike the proposal.

"Let's face it, this governor clearly has influence on every issue. He doesn't win them all, but he's a player," said Atkinson. "He's someone who is not reluctant to weigh in."

Armstrong said Rep. Bill DeWeese, the House majority leader, must decide whether the bill gets a vote anytime soon.

"How it plays in his district decides whether this is brought up or not. I think he may be inclined to bring it up; however, his caucus may not. Obviously he has to keep his caucus happy or he wouldn't be majority leader," he said.

Also scheduled to testify today are Scott Hollander, executive director of Pittsburgh-based KidsVoice; Robert T. Miller, assistant law professor at Villanova University; Mark Momjian, an attorney from Philadelphia; Bishop Gilbert Coleman of Freedom Worldwide Covenant Ministries in Philadelphia; Gloria Casarez, with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's office; Peg Luksik of the Pro-Life Coalition of Pennsylvania; and attorney Karen Buck, executive director of the SeniorLAW Center in Philadelphia.


Staff writer Tom Murse can be reached at tmurse@LNPnews.com or 481-6021.