The committee said the language about civil unions was ambiguous and could make voters less likely to approve the amendment.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee rewrote the language of the proposed amendment, altering what the state House passed June 6.

That's problematic for supporters of the House version, because constitutional amendments must pass through several time-consuming parliamentary steps before going to voters for approval.

"I have a lot of work to do," said state Rep. Scott Boyd, the Lampeter Republican who was the amendment's prime sponsor in the state House. "I'm going to try to meet with some of the folks on the committee who thought this was necessary and try to make my case."

Debate in the Judiciary Committee centered Wednesday around a clause in the proposed amendment that would forbid the state or its political subdivisions from recognizing any domestic union other than monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

The committee stripped the amendment of that language, but left unchanged the part that would define marriage as a man/woman relationship. The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote.

State Sen. Jane Earll, a Republican from Erie County, pitched the language changes.

Owen Thomas, a spokesman for Earll, said the changes strengthen the amendment by making the language simpler.

"When legislative language is cloudy and ambiguous, when legal scholars cannot agree to what it means, that language should not be in there," Thomas said. "It will be confusing to the legal experts and the voters."

Thomas said the proposed amendment now is nearly identical to a 1996 state law that defined marriage as a one-man-one-woman union.

Boyd said without the extra language the amendment could be susceptible to legal challenge by a couple seeking civil union status.

With the language absent from the proposed amendment, a gay or lesbian couple "could go to another state, like Vermont or Washington, enter a civil union, and Pennsylvania is required by the federal Constitution" to recognize that union, Boyd said.

He said the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment -- championed by Lancaster legislator Thaddeus Stevens in 1866 to protect rights of freed slaves -- would demand the state recognize the civil union.

"What disappointed me was at this late date, all of a sudden there was this change," Boyd said. "But this is a legislative process. This is what we do. Nothing's simple. It's work."

To amend the state constitution, both chambers of the General Assembly must pass identical bills in consecutive legislative sessions. Afterwards, the proposed amendment would be put to a voter referendum.

The state House passed Boyd's bill 136-61 on June 6. Boyd said if the Senate passes that bill before recessing for the summer on June 30, voters could have their say next year.

However, if the Senate enacts the Earll language changes, it would delay a voter referendum until 2009.

The Rev. Debbie Coggin of the Mountville-based Vision of Hope MCC, which ministers to gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, said even if people in her community can't marry, they want something of equal status.

Civil unions, Coggin said, would allow couples to have access to hospital visitation rights, health care benefits and other amenities otherwise denied to unmarried couples.

"What most gay and lesbian people desire is something that would recognize our relationships as equal (to marriage)," she said.

Dave Pidgeon's e-mail address is dpidgeon@lnpnews.com. blog comments powered by Disqus