by: Lurleen
Thu Mar 18, 2010 www.pamshouseblend.com

Dean Barker, a managing editor at Blue Hampshire, has kindly given me permission to post a copy of his latest diary here at Pam’s House Blend. Note that organizations Dean mentions, Cornerstone and LetNHVote, were the ones behind the recent FAILED attempt to intimidate the New Hampshire legislature into putting a vote on the definition of marriage on a referendum ballot. Remember that New Hampshire isn’t even a referendum state. –Lurleen

For the second time in as many weeks, the Union Leader tried to spin the anti-marriage petition effort’s massive fail in a misleading direction. Their effort today was so one-sided it felt like I was reading a Cornerstone release verbatim.

Vote The UL would have you believe that there is almost a 2/3rds majority support for writing discrimination into our constitution. Instead of dignifying that misleading spin with a verbal response, here’s a map that Granite State Progress put together. The towns that rejected the article, as well as those where the anti-marriagers couldn’t even scratch up the requisite petition signatures, are in blue, while those towns where it passed are in green (not passed by the 2/3rds needed for a constitutional amendment, mind you, just the sum of those passed):

Let’s be clear here, since the Union Leader, and, to my dismay, plenty of other false equivalence pieces in other state media organs won’t:

* The anti-marriage crowd couldn’t even get on the ballot in 73 communities (and wasn’t on the ballot in 13 cities, which don’t have non-binding warrant resolutions).
* Where it did, it was rejected in 80 communities and adopted in 59.

As Granite State Progress’ report on this details (below the fold, required reading), it is not clear to what extent the National Organization for Marriage was behind this effort in strategy and funding. What is clear, however, is that town by town, our great state said no to this obviously coordinated movement to strip the rights away from some of our tax-paying, patriotic citizens in the Live Free or Die state.

Lurleen :: Dean Barker: New Hampshire Defies Union Misleader on Marriage

For Immediate Release Contact: Zandra Rice Hawkins

Thursday, March 18, 2010 603-892-2150

New Hampshire Sends Strong Message: Marriage Equality is Here to Stay

Attempt to vote to discriminate an epic failure in NH

Concord, NH – New Hampshire towns have resoundingly rejected the vote to discriminate – an attempt to pressure for a statewide vote aimed at repealing marriage equality. In direct contrast to the intent of the town meeting petition campaign, voters sent a clear message that the people of New Hampshire do not vote to take away the rights of their neighbors. Results show:

· An astounding 80 towns rejected the vote to discriminate thus far – versus 59 towns who passed it. The facts completely undermine marriage equality opponent’s claims that the people of New Hampshire are calling for a vote.

· To put it another way, 57.5% of communities with the petition said NO to voting to take away the rights of others, compared to a mere 42.4% who voted yes.

In addition, another 86 communities – 37% of New Hampshire towns – did not even discuss the petition.

“Once we educated people about the true intent of the vote to discriminate, New Hampshire responded with such force that there is no doubt marriage equality is here to stay in the Granite State,” said Zandra Rice Hawkins, director of the organization Granite State Progress. “Anti-equality organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and Cornerstone Policy Research should be ashamed for pushing a misleading resolution in New Hampshire, and embarrassed for claiming a victory before they looked at the numbers. We have a strong tradition of civil liberties here and marriage equality is no exception in the Live Free or Die state.”

Granite State Progress and its members, along with groups NH Freedom to Marry and PFLAG, have worked over the last three months to run an education campaign on the town meeting article.

“The grassroots effort and resulting success was made possible by the countless communities who came together to challenge the vote to discriminate and send a strong message that in New Hampshire, we don’t vote on taking away the rights of our fellow citizens,” Rice Hawkins said.

A constitutional amendment to define marriage, CACR 28, was also defeated at the New Hampshire State House in February 2010, by a margin of 201-135.

Granite State Progress is a progressive advocacy organization that addresses issues of immediate state and local concern. Granite State Progress works as a communications hub for the progressive community to provide a strong, credible voice in advancing progressive solutions to critical community problems.

nhban1New Hampshire Town Meeting: A Guide to What Happened with the Marriage Petition

On January 4, 2010, a press conference was held at the New Hampshire State House to announce an effort to pressure for passage of CACR 28 (since defeated) through non-binding town meeting resolutions stating: The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines “marriage.” Otherwise known as the Vote to Discriminate, the outcome of the town meeting petitions has been difficult to track and understand at the state level. We hope the following narrative is helpful to you as you share with your readership just what happened. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Zandra Rice Hawkins, Granite State Progress, at (603) 892-2150 or zan...@granitestateprogress.org.

The Facts from New Hampshire Town Meetings

· There are 221 towns in New Hampshire that can have petitioned articles

· Let NH Vote attempted to put the petition forward in every community, but it could not find even 25 people in support of their mission in 73 towns

· This excludes the 13 cities – and major population centers – that don’t have non-binding warrant resolutions, which means that a combined 86 communities – or 37% of New Hampshire towns – did not discuss the petition

· Out of the 148 towns that do have the petitioned warrant article –

o 9 towns won’t take up the issue until later this Spring

o 139 have considered it thus far –

§ 33 refused to vote on the rights of others, killing the petition

§ 47 refused to even entertain voting on the rights of others, tabling or amending the language to kill the petition

The overall outcome is that 80 communities so far have rejected the vote to discriminate. Only 59 communities passed it.

To put it another way, 57.6% of communities with the petition said NO to voting to take away the rights of others. A mere 42.4% said yes.

A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 majority of votes across the state. What’s more, Rep. David Bates, Rep. Al Baldasaro, Cornerstone Policy Research, and the National Organization for Marriage – all under the guise of “Let NH Vote” – could not even garner enough support to get on the ballot in 73 communities. These results show that not only is New Hampshire supportive of marriage equality, the overwhelming reaction from communities is that we should not vote on the rights of others.

Why are these tallies different from Let NH Vote?

Let NH Vote was out-organized in several communities that rejected the very idea of a vote to discriminate. Many New Hampshire residents believe it is wrong to vote on the rights of others, and that doing so sets a dangerous precedent. Some communities chose to amend the original petition language or “table” the motion altogether-both moves were public stands against voting on the rights of others.

Rep. David Bates, Rep. Al Baldasaro, Kevin Smith with Cornerstone Policy Research, and the National Organization for Marriage (also known as “Let NH Vote”) are upset that these communities saw through their misleading language and rejected it outright. Because they don’t like the outcome, “Let NH Vote” simply doesn’t acknowledge those towns. The ‘Complete Results’ listing on letnhvote.com lists only 92 towns – completely ignoring the results for an alarming 47 towns!

How did this organizing effort happen?

“Let NH Vote” – which never revealed its funding source for the thousands of slick yard signs or 5 versions of bumper stickers – promoted itself as a grassroots organization led solely by State Representative David Bates.

However, according to the blog of the National Organization for Marriage, the national anti-marriage group has been involved since October:

Another last bit of good news: New Hampshire Rep. David Bates has taken the initiative to organize a movement to get a marriage amendment on the ballot in New Hampshire.”Let’s make New Hampshire #31,” he says, meaning the 31st state to pass a state marriage amendment…If you live in New Hampshire, or know someone who cares about marriage who does, please email this info to us at i...@nationformarriage.org. We will pass it on to Rep. Bates. (National Organization for Marriage, Blog, 10/9/09)

And Cornerstone Policy Research – which hovered at the “Let NH Vote” launch press conference but said they were not involved when asked pointblank by Granite State Progress …

Yesterday, at a press conference held by Representative David Bates (R-Windham), it was announced that over the last few months, he has been working on a grassroots effort to have citizens in each town in NH, petition their towns to put the following NON-BINDING question on each town ballot or at each town hall meeting: (Cornerstone Policy Research, Blog, 1/6/2010)

… now admits that they were intimately involved in the organizing (and, one could presume, funding) of the town meeting drive:

Following the March 9 elections the organization that put the resolution on ballots and Town Meeting warrants around the state – the Cornerstone Policy Research, using the Web address LetNHVote.org – claimed the support the resolution got was an indication that citizens want the right to vote on the issue of defining marriage in New Hampshire. (Hampton Union, 3/16/10)

In contrast, the effort to protect equality in New Hampshire involved a large grassroots movement of marriage equality supporters and civil rights advocates from across the state.

Granite State Progress, NH Freedom to Marry and others researched town meeting information and helped local activists create community campaign plans, which involved reaching out to friends and family and, in some communities, grassroots fundraising to run ads listing the hundreds of people in opposition to the warrant article [ad copies available upon request].

Our opposition to the petition was at a clear disadvantage in a number of ways – we did not have funding for a statewide campaign, we had to research town meeting information for hundreds of towns while “Let NH Vote” knew exactly when and where the petitions would show up, we couldn’t publicly post our strategy and engage more advocates without giving away key details, and we had a little more than a month from the announcement of “Let NH Vote” to the start of the first town meeting.

And yet, because of the strength of local organizing and New Hampshire’s strong commitment to civil rights for all, we won.

Will this be an issue on Election Day?

Since “Let NH Vote” publicly announced they had petition drives in every New Hampshire town except the 13 cities that do not have a town meeting, it’s clear that they were unable to collect enough petitions in 73 communities. In most communities you only need 25 signatures to get a petition on the ballot–not a high hurdle if people believe strongly that they should be able to vote on the rights of others. The fact that Representatives Bates and Baldasaro and their institutional funders were unable to collect petitions in these towns – and then lost the majority of towns that did consider the issue – undercuts their theory that there will be a reckoning come Election Day in November.

If anything, marriage equality opponents should be nervous.

What does this all mean?

Our state stood strong for equal rights for all New Hampshire families.

The bottom line is that people saw through “Let NH Vote’s” misleading effort. The effort to repeal marriage equality through a public vote was a massive failure as the majority of New Hampshire communities refused to vote on the rights of others.

You are welcome to quote anything in this narrative and attribute it to Zandra Rice Hawkins, director of Granite State Progress. We also have the contact information for many of the local community leaders who made this success possible, which we are happy to share upon request

A Few Quotes from Around New Hampshire

Monadnock Region: “I am personally very proud of the many citizens of the Monadnock Region who voted to maintain the civil rights of their neighbors,” said Bobbie Barry, Northeast Regional Director for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) chapter and a local volunteer organizer for the town meeting campaign in her area. “PFLAG believes that society at large benefits from an environment that supports committed stable relationships, including same-gender committed relationships, which provide mutual emotional, social, financial, legal and medical support. We completely support extending persons in same-gender committed relationships the right to marry with the full legal rights and benefits, as well as responsibilities and obligations.” [PFLAG NH]

Winchester: Winchester resident Mary Gannon told her neighbors, “It is a mockery to take away the rights of others under the guise of the right to vote. I encourage my fellow community members to vote yes on this amendment because the warrant article, as currently worded, encourages our community to vote to discriminate.” [Granite State Progress]

Bethlehem: “Despite all the protestations to the contrary, the underlying purpose of this movement is to discriminate against gays,” Bethlehem resident David Wood said at his deliberative session. “We do not discriminate against our neighbors here. Many years ago, Bethlehem ended its discrimination against Jewish people and we are not about to go back there again. Not in this town, not tonight.” [Granite State Progress]

Deerfield: At yesterday’s meeting, residents voted to strike the proposed resolution by a 92-28 vote, Hooker said. Deerfield resident Jim Deely, 36, made the motion to amend the warrant article to take out all but two words, effectively rending it null and void. “It’s clearly a statewide, divisive end-around to try to impose individuals’ religious and moral views on others,” Deely said. [Concord Monitor]

Hollis: In response, Dan Murphy, of Farm Pond Lane, said the state Legislature was “acting in the best traditions of New Hampshire” when it approved gay marriage. “We go the extra mile to make sure citizens live the lives they wish,” he said. “It pains me to think that there is a slight possibility that the joy and fulfillment of my neighbors could be denied. “In 20 or 30 years, such an amendment would be as unthinkable” as an amendment to forbid marriage between races. [Nashua Telegraph]

Hancock: A petitioned article that would advise state lawmakers that New Hampshire residents should be permitted to weigh in on an amendment to the state constitution defining “marriage” failed, also in a ballot vote, 102-32. “It’s misleading how it’s written,” said resident Jane Eklund. “The sole purpose of this is to overturn marriage equality.” [Keene Sentinel]

Plainfield: “We see this not as an issue of voting rights, but rather as an issue of civil rights,” said Richard Atkinson, speaking on behalf of a coalition of Plainfield residents opposed to the article. “Rather than possibly sending a vague and misunderstood message to our elected representatives, we wish to send a message that states that we as a town affirm and celebrate marriage equality.” [Valley News]

Farmington: Farmington resident Richard Stanley, who is a police officer in Newington, addressed the issue. “I am a good person and I pay my taxes,” he said, acknowledging that he was married to another man. “It is absolutely disgusting that someone put this on the warrant to limit my civil rights. Personal business has no place at town meeting.” He went on to list the rights granted him through marriage … A motion was then made from the floor to table the article, and the 55 voters who were still in attendance overwhelmingly approved of doing so, which meant no action was taken. [Fosters]

Stratham: “I’m one of the few people in this community who this amendment would have a direct affect on,” said Michael Perfit, a gay Stratham resident who addressed the crowd at Town Meeting and urged them to vote the amendment down. “I grew up in the South and I am old enough to remember separate bathrooms for black people, them being relegated to the back of the bus, and blacks and whites being denied the right to marry each other,” he said. “Discrimination hurts all of us.” [Portsmouth Herald]

ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) ―

A transgender aide to a Montgomery County councilwoman is suing the county for $5 million under an anti-discrimination law she helped write.

Dana Beyer, an adviser to Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg, helped draft a 2007 law that outlawed discrimination based on gender identity.

Now Beyer contends the county’s ethics commission broke that law during an investigation of her.

Beyer was investigated by the commission after a complaint by a group that opposed the anti-discrimination law. The group said Beyer used her position to try to intimidate opponents of the bill who were gathering signatures.

Beyer filed the $5 million lawsuit in February.

County spokesman Patrick Lacefield says the county believes Beyer’s claim has no merit and will ask a judge to dismiss it.

(© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

In what appears to be an unscripted act of civil disobedience following an HRC rally for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Lt. Dan Choi has led a group of protesters to the White House, where he has handcuffed himself to the gates.

By Kerry Eleveld and Advocate.com Editors

In what appears to be an unscripted act of civil disobedience following a Human Rights Campaign rally for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in Washington on Thursday, Lt. Dan Choi has led a group of protesters to the White House, where he has handcuffed himself to the front gates along with former Army infantryman James Pietrangelo.

Police officers are blocking the gates of the White House with yellow tape and are pushing back about 100 protesters, who are chanting DADT repeal slogans and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Choi was speaking at the HRC rally at Freedom Plaza when he asked the group’s executive director, Joe Solmonese, if he would march to the White House. Both Choi and Pietrangelo were discharged from the military under DADT. Choi is the founder of Knights Out, a West Point alumni organization supporting LGBT soldiers.

“You’ve been told that the White House has a plan,” Choi told rally protesters. “But we learned this week that the president is still not fully committed. … Following this rally, I will be leading [the protest] to the White House to say ‘enough talk.’ … I am still standing, I am still fighting, I am still speaking out, and I am still gay.”

Kathy Griffin, who was in Washington at the behest of HRC to meet with members of Congress about DADT repeal, was also at the rally. When asked by Choi if she would march with him to the White House, Griffin responded, “Of course!”

Neither Griffin nor Solmonese was seen at the White House protest, however.

Gay rights activist Robin McGehee was arrested after she had apparently helped the two discharged soldiers handcuff themselves the fence. An officer who arrested McGehee said “I can’t say anything” on why she was taken into custody.

BREAKING: Photos of Dan Choi arrested

Nancy Pelosi has the ability to end workplace discrimination of LGBTQ people, but she is refusing to act. It’s time to let her know that we won’t wait any longer.

As you read this, GetEqual.org members are entering Pelosi’s offices in DC and her district office in San Francisco. They won’t leave until Speaker Pelosi commits to bring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to the floor for a vote this month – or until they are arrested.

Speaker Pelosi needs to hear from our community today. Can you call Speaker Pelosi right now to demand that ENDA (HR 3017) move to the floor for a vote? (202) 225-4965

A majority of Congress supports this bill to stop job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but promises to bring it to a vote last fall were broken several times. ENDA has been jammed up in committee for six months, awaiting a signal from Speaker Pelosi that hasn’t come. We have visited, called and written Congress by the thousands, and have been ignored. The usual lobbying tactics do not appear to be having the needed effect. Now the midterm elections are coming, and Speaker Pelosi has promised Congress no more “controversial” votes. The “controversy” is whether LGBT Americans have the right to a job. This “tyrrany of the majority” must stop. Nonviolent direct action is relevant and needed and it’s happening now.

ENDA is important because studies show that LGBT workers endure high unemployment, underemployment and harassment. We have to lie and hide in order to get and keep a job. In 30 states across America, there is no law against firing someone based on his or her sexual orientation, and the same is true in 38 states for gender identity. Ask Police Officer Michael Carney of Springfield, Massachusetts, who testified before Congress about the harassment he had to endure in the station house before being fired. Ask Vandy Beth Glenn of Atlanta, Georgia, who told Congress about being fired from her job as a proofreader with the Georgia legislature because she is transgender. This has gone on long enough.

Will you join with us in demanding that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people be protected from job discrimination?

Call Speaker Pelosi’s office at (202) 225-4965 to ask that ENDA (HR 3017) move forward to a vote. Be polite, but firm. Take action now, and please let us know how it goes.

As President Obama himself said, quoting Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” We know Speaker Pelosi is sympathetic to our cause, but is she ready to act on our civil rights? It is time for a demand.

-Jillian Weiss and the GetEQUAL crew

By 365gay Newswire
03.17.2010

From an ACLU press release:

(Jackson, Miss.) The Mississippi Department of Corrections agreed to end the segregation of prisoners with HIV, a longstanding discriminatory policy that has prevented prisoners from accessing key resources that facilitate their successful transition back into the community.

The decision by Mississippi’s corrections commissioner Christopher Epps, prompted by recent advocacy by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, leaves Alabama and South Carolina as the only states in the nation that segregate prisoners based on their HIV status. Epps made the decision ahead of a forthcoming report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch analyzing the harmful impact segregation policies have had in the three states.

“Commissioner Epps deserves a tremendous amount of credit for making this courageous decision to replace a policy based on irrational HIV prejudice with a policy based on science, sound correctional practice and respect for human rights,” said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “The remaining segregation policies in South Carolina and Alabama are a remnant of the early days of the HIV epidemic and continue to stigmatize prisoners and inflict them and their families with a tremendous amount of needless suffering.”

Public and correctional health experts agree that there is no medical basis for segregating HIV-positive prisoners within correctional facilities or for limiting access to jobs, vocational training and educational programs available to others.

Since 1987, however, the Mississippi corrections system has performed mandatory HIV tests on all prisoners entering the state prison system, and has permanently housed all male prisoners who test positive in a segregated unit at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, the state’s highest security prison.

As a result, prisoners with HIV have been faced with unjustified isolation, exclusion and marginalization, and low-custody prisoners have been forced unnecessarily to serve their sentences in more violent, more expensive prisons.

The change in policy will enable prisoners with HIV to participate in jobs, training programs and other services to which they were previously denied access because of their HIV status and which are designed to prepare prisoners for a productive return to society.

Prisoners with HIV will now be able to participate in kitchen work, for example, which can be beneficial to them in many ways. Many prisoners worked in kitchens, cafes or restaurants prior to their incarceration, and continued employment in that area can help them upon re-entry into the workforce. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, there is no medical basis for preventing persons with HIV from working in kitchens or other food service employment.

Additionally, prisoners with HIV will no longer be assigned to a segregated HIV unit, which resulted in the public disclosure of their HIV status and left them at risk of being ostracized and subjected to hostility and violence at the hands of other prisoners.

Epps said he will phase in the new desegregation policy gradually for prisoners currently housed in the HIV unit, and will form a committee to make individualized placement decisions for these prisoners. Starting immediately, incoming prisoners will be housed using only criteria set out in the state classification plan such as criminal history, length of sentence and other factors unrelated to their HIV status.

“Prisoners with HIV were often forced to live in cruel, inhumane and degrading conditions, and we’re delighted that Mississippi has changed its policy,” said Megan McLemore, health researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Integrating prisoners with HIV is the norm across the United States and MDOC deserves significant credit for making this decision.”

Additional information about the ACLU National Prison Project is available online at: www.aclu.org/prison

By Jennifer Vanasco, editor in chief, 365gay.com 03.17.2010

About 600 people have said on Facebook they will dress in evening wear on April 2 to protest the Mississippi school that cancelled prom instead of letting a lesbian in a tuxedo and her girlfriend attend.

The event, called Dress You Up in my Love/The Nationwide Equality Prom, is the brainchild of activist Jen Dugan.

Dress You Up In My Love (The Nationwide Equality Prom)

When: April 2nd, 2010.

Why: In solidarity with Constance McMillan

Constance McMillan wanted to take her girlfriend to prom. Rather than allow a same-sex couple to attend, her school canceled the prom for everyone.

Well, that’s just uncalled for.

April 2nd was the original date for the dance. If her school won’t hold it – then let’s dress up in support of equality and have a nationwide prom that day.

Here’s what to do:

Schools (without dress codes), universities, clubs, organizations, & interested individuals:

On April 2nd, dress up in your absolute FINEST. If you have a suit or old tuxedo and want to wear it – put it on. If you have a nice dress or an old prom gown that fits – wear it. If you have none of this, just find whatever nice clothes you have and feel comfortable wearing.

”But I’ll look completely out of place and ridiculous. People don’t wear formal clothing every day.”

Exactly.

Wearing a tuxedo, suit, gown, or formal dress clothes to class, work, or grocery shopping IS out of the ordinary. And it’s going to draw attention and get some questions asked.

So, if anyone asks why you’re all dressed up – tell them: A young woman in Mississippi wanted to go to prom with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo. Instead of being allowed to do this, the administration canceled the prom for everyone.

Since April 2nd was the original date for the prom – you’re dressing up to show your solidarity with Constance and support for equality.

Get a group of your friends to dress up with you. April 2nd is a Friday. Have fun with this while taking a stand.

(Extra points if you can manage to organize some type of prom-esq social or function in your local community on this day).

RSVP on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=365198770039

Email: equa...@me.com

- By The Associated Press
March 17, 2010

TRENTON — Gay rights advocates are preparing legal action to attempt to get New Jersey to legalize gay marriage.

Lambda Legal is expected to announce details along with other groups on Thursday.

Lambda represented seven gay couples in a 2006 case in which the state Supreme Court came one vote shy of requiring the state to recognize gay marriage.

Ultimately, the state created civil unions. Gay rights advocates said the arrangement doesn’t create equality that marriage would.

Advocates said earlier this year that they would return to court after state lawmakers defeated a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage.

Five states and Washington D.C. now allow gay marriage.

- As reported by New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, March 16, 2010:

Here is a list of seventy towns that rejected the resolution. This list does not include 88 of New Hampshire ’s 231 towns and all of New Hampshire ’s 13 cities that refused to take the issue up. These results are totally consistent with UNH Survey Center polling that demonstrates 74% of New Hampshire citizens are not bothered by marriage equality.

“…Opponents of equality having failed to collect the 25 signatures necessary in more than half of New Hampshire’s towns and having failed to collect the necessary signatures in any of New Hampshire’s cities have lost their effort to demonstrate their capacity to amend the New Hampshire Constitution with 2/3 of New Hampshire voters supporting such an amendment. It is mathematically impossible for them to reach a majority of New Hampshire voters let alone the 2/3 necessary.

“…These non-binding resolutions are an attempt to turn neighbor against neighbor and trick citizens into supporting this hateful constitutional amendment that re-defines marriage whether in name or effect, as the union of one man and one women. This would not only repeal marriage equality but would also make civil unions and or any other type of relationship recognition for gay/lesbian couples unconstitutional.

- By JAN MURPHY, The Patriot-News
March 16, 2010

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 8-6 to table Senate Bill 707 which proposed amending the state constitution to add the phrase: “Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”

The motion to table garnered the support of the Democrats on the committee along with Republican Sens. Mary Jo White of Venango County, Jane Earll of Erie County and Pat Browne of Lehigh County. The committee vote drew a round of applause from those seated in the crowded Capitol meeting room.

Andy Hoover, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, considered the committee’s vote to be a victory for those opposed having this narrow definition of marriage added to the constitution. Pennsylvania already has a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but some wanted this definition added to the constitution to prevent a court from overturning the law.

“It’s hard to imagine this coming up again after what just happened. This is the third time this has gone down … in four years. It’s pretty clear the Legislature has other more important things to deal with right now,” Hoover said.

Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Blair County, was unavailable for comment after the meeting.

The committee decision likely dashes the prospects of this issue advancing during this legislative session that ends Nov. 30 given the constitutional and advertising requirements associated with amending the state constitution.

This morning, visitors and workers headed to the state Capitol were greeted by a throng of supporters of Eichelberger’s legislation.

“We’re standing here to protect marriage,” said John E. Ritchie, 35, of Spring Grove, the spokesman for the group, which Ritchie described as an organization of lay Catholics. “We see same-sex marriage as a violation of natural law, God’s law and common sense.”

To amend the constitution, identical versions of a bill must pass the House and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions. Even if the proposal had cleared the Senate, it would have run into resistance in the House State Government Committee where it likely would have landed. Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, who chairs that committee, has made it clear she does not support the legislation.

- By CHRIS A. COUROGEN, The Patriot-News
March 16, 2010

A group calling itself The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property is staging a rally this morning at Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue in Harrisburg in support of a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania state constitution that would ban gay marriage in the state.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on the measure this morning, with a committee vote expected. The proposed amendment would add the phrase: “Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth” to the constitution.

“We’re standing here to protect marriage,” said John E. Ritchie, 35, of Spring Grove, the spokesman for the group, which Ritchie described as an organization of lay Catholics. “We see same-sex marriage as a violation of natural law, God’s law and common sense.”

The organization claims 120,000 members nationwide, including “several thousand in the Harrisburg area,” claims Ritchie. This morning’s rally drew fewer than a dozen protesters.

Wearing bright red sashes held together with a gold pin shaped like a “raging lion” to symbolize “Christ, the Lion of Judah,” and using exaggerated bass voices “to attract attention,” the group held signs asking passing motorists to honk for traditional marriage as they chanted slogans such as “Keep America strong, defend traditional marriage.”

The signs drew only sporadic honks from the horns of traffic passing the busy corner near the Capitol Complex. Some passers-by appeared mildly amused, few seemed to pay attention, and even fewer were willing to comment to a Patriot-News reporter asking for their reaction.

“It’s just another protest,” said one man as he walked by, declining to stop for further comment or to give his name.

Allen Winn, of Pine Grove, said he personally does not favor same-sex marriage, but he opposes the proposed change to the constitution. “I am a Christian. I have my Christian beliefs. But I think the constitution is what it is,” said Winn. “too many people want to rewrite the constitution in their own view.

“I think everybody has the right to the pursuit of happiness,” Winn added. “The separation of church and state should stay as it is.”

Ritchie said the group plans to continue its protest through the lunch hour.