May 6, 2008 Comments Prepared for Senate Floor Debate

Senator FERLO:

Madame President, I rise today to speak out strongly against SB 1250 because what we are considering is a misguided misplaced mistake.

Madame President, I want to present this issue within the panoply of other problems that we need to deal with and then we can all make a judgment whether our priorities are right ...

Consider the following:

· While we examine marriage today, gas prices continue to skyrocket, passing $3.70 a gallon with no end in sight;
· While we look to deny rights today, 767,000 or more Pennsylvanians languish without proper health care;
· While we talk about how men and women relate, some college students go without access to low cost loans;
· While we focus on marriage questions, homes are being foreclosed and families driven into bankruptcy;
· While we debate far-fetched marriage minutia, bridges decay, roads are in disrepair and public transit needs do not receive the attention they deserve;

Does passing this bill today help cut gas costs, provide health care, promote low cost college loans, halt needless foreclosures or repair our roads and bridges, or stem the shock of electric rates which will exponentially increase when rate caps are lifted?

No, it does none of that.

This bill does not solve one problem, yet it creates many.

The fact that we would move on this bill at all proves one thing; that a small minority of folks, perhaps challenged, unsure and threatened in their own relationships can scream loud enough and long enough to convince a majority of other folks that a problem exists and that something must be done.

It is legislating in search of a problem.

Today, on this floor we are considering a measure that ostensibly, seeks to put into our state Constitution, language that purportedly “protects marriage.”

My question is, what are we “protecting marriage” from? Divorce? Adultery? Abuse? What?

No, we are here "protecting marriage" supposedly from the specter of so-called activist judges who would threaten its very existence!

Since this body passed statutory language protecting marriage more than a decade ago, the statute has not been challenged … it has never been argued … its legitimacy is not in doubt.

Whew!!! Now I get it.

We are protecting a definition of marriage from activism because they’ve been so active???

If that’s activism then I suggest the movement get a bolt of lightning because as of right now our activist judiciary has very little life.

Let’s face it: Our liberal activist jurists—the ones that the advocates fear---are not moving at light speed on this one!

What a bunch of nonsense this bill is … and, worse, it is a waste of time—our time when we could be dealing with real life issues that affect our constituents a lot more that this feeble effort.

Lets cut the baloney and say what this bill really is…because it’s not about protecting marriage as far as I know. Men and women in strong marriages are not threatened at all. They seem to be doing just fine. Fact is, Pennsylvania has one of the lowest divorce rates in the United States, surpassed in 2005 only by Massachusetts, the only state to fully allow gay marriage. Meanwhile, states that have the toughest language regarding same sex marriage have the highest divorce rates in the country.

Madame President, why is that? It is because those states that have the highest rates of divorce also have lower achievement in education, lower incomes and the lowest average age in marriage.

So if we want to really do something about protecting marriage let's do something about jobs, health care and education.

But, that’s not what this is really about.

No. This bill is about denying rights to men and women of the same sex who happen to love each other. This bill is about a small minority who feel anguish because they see men and women in a same sex relationship as different, as strange and, because they are different, they don’t like it. Some in our society are more threatened with 2 men holding hands than holding guns.

If you really want to enhance marriage and help struggling families, then let’s legislate an energy bill, a health care bill, a new transportation plan, a school loan bill and an end to the war in Iraq by withdrawing the Pennsylvania National Guard.

That’s what men and women in marriages are worried about! Those issues are the cause of far more relationship break-ups than whether two other people of the same sex are in a relationship.

Intolerance and discrimination is what this bill really delivers to all Pennsylvania families.

We should be legislating against intolerance and discrimination, not promoting it.

Why is government involved in this at all? All government does is sanction a civil union—and we’ve already decided that a sanctioned marriage is between a man and woman.

Those who advocate elevating the definition of marriage into our constitution say it is because the definition of marriage is threatened.

If we were to use that standard—elevating those items that are threatened by an activist government into our Constitution—then we should put other laws into our Constitution.

Lets start with our school funding formula, capital budget, the gaming law and put deer management in there too.

Because, I’d suggest they are more threatened by judicial activism than the definition of marriage. Madame President, we are here today because we have those who typically abhor government activism seeking government intervention.

We are here because a small-core of activist special interests seeks to deny rights and push an agenda that opens fissures and drives wedges between people in order to score political points.

They want us to look at the functional equivalent of marriage…and hide discriminatory language under the cloak of doing something good like protecting marriage.

That’s why this proposal is like a mackerel in the moonlight…its shines and stinks at the same time.

This is Wedge-Politics 101… This is not about doing what’s right…it’s about doing what is wrong.

The language before us violates the basic tenets of our Constitution. It violates the principles of our freedom of association. It violates the biblical covenant of treating others as we would like to be treated.

This is 2008 and this is bigotry, plain and simple.

And, in no way, does it deserve a place in our state Constitution anywhere near Article 1’s “rights of mankind.”

To include language that denies rights in this living text would trash the meaning of those words that we all swore to uphold.

At another place and another time, during Watergate—when our federal Constitution was under attack by an executive branch of government—Rep. Barbara Jordan said that her faith in “the Constitution was whole, it is complete, it is total.”

She said what many of us believe that “we are not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of our Constitution.”

Because what we are doing here is just that: denying rights, reigning in freedom, promoting injustice, that is what this is all about today.

Madam President, Senate Bill No. 1250, no matter how we cut it or no matter how we finesse it here today, we are basically enshrining in our State Constitution a principle of discrimination. This measure is disheartening, it is divisive, and it is diversionary, to say the least. This bill is not about embellishing our Constitution with further democratic principals and Civil Rights' privileges, rather it would violate the basic tenet and purpose of our State Constitution, which states that the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established. Our State Constitution is as historically significant in its age and durability as our nation's Constitution and Bill of Rights. Article I, Declaration of Rights, Section 26, enumerates this further by establishing that neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right. Section 28 explicitly states that quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual.

The legislation before us today is not about protecting or enhancing a cherished principle, but a bill that reflects pandering and political posturing on a hot button, emotionally-charged issue. I believe its sole purpose and only impetus, whether on the national stage or here in the State Capitol, is to polarize the electorate in hopes that people will forget about truly substantive issues that the legislature has failed to act on for the benefit of our very constituencies. This measure takes a page right out of the Karl Rove school of defensive politics. When your polling and confidence numbers are way down because of the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the lopsided economy, the dwindling middle class, joblessness, underemployment, unwarranted and illegal spying, lying to Congress, outrageous trade deficits, and a staggering, strangling national debt, a lack of a national health care plan, confusion and resentment of the pharmaceutical-serving contrived Medicare Part D program, or a plethora of critical life and death issues affecting the American people and the residents of our Commonwealth, then throw out the smoke screens, sharpen the finger pointers, and start appealing to people's fears and misconceptions.

Pennsylvania law already exists and allows only a legal marriage between one man and one woman. The Pennsylvania Bar Association rightfully points out that this amendment may preclude future judicial scrutiny of the defense of marriage act and may infringe upon the independence of and the integrity of our judicial branch. The institution of marriage is not under threat from gays or lesbians seeking legal legitimacy of their loving relationship any more so than from financially struggling seniors who need and desire to live together without penalty to protect their Social Security income.

This legislature needs to get off of its high moral horse and stop telling people how to live their adult lives. If you want to help preserve, protect, and enhance marriage in any of its forms, then let us help struggling couples meet their day-to-day economic and household needs, or maybe give people support when the chips are down, or encourage people to pull together as a family when dark clouds loom overhead. Our society, a truly unique and great American experience, has been nourished because of the extension of rights to women, to racial minorities, to those who may be physically or mentally challenged, to immigrants, to children who cannot advocate for themselves in all instances, and to sexual minorities who ask that their conduct be treated equitably in a democratic society. We are truly great and envied because of our tolerance and because of our acceptance. Let this not be undermined today with an affirmative vote.

Should Senate Bill No. 1250 be approved, we will once again be thrust into a time of discrimination and intolerance, and for the first time in our history, discrimination of a select minority could be written into our State's Constitution. That is why I am strongly against making a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage. Legislation and legal rulings represent the ever-changing fluidity of our society and reflect the ever-changing opinions of the period in which they are made. Fundamental changes to our Constitution should not be done in such an expedient manner.

I believe we still have to grapple with questions regarding the effects of this bill on domestic partnership benefits afforded to thousands of Pennsylvanians through collective bargaining, benefit plans offered by public institutions, or the right of the private sector to entice the best and the brightest to their place of employment. What about the numerous local ordinances?

Philadelphia has been mentioned, but Pittsburgh and many other communities across the State provide Civil Rights' protections based on marital status or domestic partnerships. What about other states that extend legal recognition to same-sex couples, and are those couples to lose their rights when they reside or move to Pennsylvania? Are we going to place a "Do Not Enter" sign at the doorway of Pennsylvania? Many domestic abuse counselors and advocates have expressed fear that a court may narrowly interpret this law to mean that individuals seeking a protection from abuse order can only be married, not dating or living together, let alone be gay or lesbian, or considered a sexual minority. The list of policy questions is seemingly endless, and it is irresponsible to approve this bill without further public comment and discourse.

Writing discrimination into our Constitution, as far as I am concerned, would be unconscionable and immoral. The Pennsylvania Constitution should not be tarnished with this measure, and as I pointed out earlier, we already have a Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage solely between a man and a woman. This perception of an attack on the institution of marriage from an activist Pennsylvania court is not proven to exist. No reasonable, legal threat has been mounted in Pennsylvania that would make me believe that there is a rational cause for adding this unprecedented amendment. Pennsylvanians deserve better leadership.

This brings me to another point. What are we losing by putting bigotry on display and enshrining it into our State Constitution in this manner? The GLBT community, individually and collectively, participates in the productive and meaningful day-to-day life of every community and workplace in our Commonwealth, recognized or otherwise. You do not have to celebrate diversity, you do not have to appreciate diversity, you can continue to have your own personal right to your own prejudices and biases, but why deny others the same civil and human rights that you seek for yourself? Those who some consider to be in the sexual minority, they pay taxes, they live and work and contribute to society. They may be teachers and preachers and politicians. They have families and pay bills. They have good times and bad times, just like anybody else.

Set aside your prejudice for just a minute and imagine that you have been in a loving and caring relationship for many years and your loved one is on his or her death bed and the hospital personnel tells you that you are not family, so you cannot stay in the room at your loved one's final passing. I do not believe morally that this is what God ordained for humanity. Imagine the relatives of your loved one, who may be ten times removed, and not even friends any longer to the now deceased, legally inheriting the house and property that the two of you built and shared during your relationship, because you are not recognized in legal standing.

We cannot even count the number of children in loving and nurturing homes across our Commonwealth who will be threatened with hateful reprisals should the next bill seek to ensure that children be adopted or raised by heterosexual married couples only, and believe me, this is part two of the agenda for many. Placing this amendment on a general election ballot I fear will subject our state to a vicious campaign that will be divisive to Pennsylvania citizens, and downright hurtful to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender residents of our state. We are today choosing between alienating our neighbors and loved ones, and possibly pushing them out of communities. Defeating this amendment would pave the way toward an integrated, open-minded, caring, and democratic community that offers equal rights and liberties to all and at the expense and infringement to none.

Society is always evolving, and acceptable convictions, prejudices, and standards continue to be modified. One hundred years ago, women did not have the right to vote. Racial minorities faced societal prejudices and second-class citizenship. You could be jailed for what now may be considered acceptable forms of free speech, and only the well-off received public education as the social norm. Many closed minds have thankfully been reversed in our now diverse society, and one day it is vary possible that our society here in the Commonwealth will come to accept same-sex marriage and legitimize civil unions, which is now the acceptable norm in Italy, Canada, Spain, England, Sweden, and many other nations in the world, Catholic nations I might add, as well.

Regardless of what many of you feel about same-sex marriage, it is necessary that we take a step back and realize the enormity of tampering with the Constitution. It should not be our first course of action, ladies and gentlemen, and I believe very strongly, at the least, it should be the last resort. Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. This process is difficult for a reason. The strength and well-being of our Commonwealth is at stake. A law is enough to accomplish a ban on same-sex marriage. Amendments like these take away the rights of all men and women, regardless of their sexual preference or personal proclivities. While the Constitution has been amended in the past, it has never been altered with the express intent to deny equal protection to an entire class of citizens, and now is not the time to start. This is the wrong approach…and, we are considering it at the wrong time.

Let's get to work on real issues. Madame President I ask for negative vote on SB 1250.

Thank you, Madame President.