HB 300 Will Lead To Same-Sex Marriage
March 12, 2009
HB 300 would amend the Human Relations Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity. The addition of this language puts decisions implicating homosexual behavior on the same level with racial bigotry.
Ultimately, adding sexual orientation and gender identity creates a new public policy. It has been used by courts elsewhere as evidence of a policy in favor of homosexuality and formed the basis for various decisions to mandate same-sex marriage or marriage equivalents.
In the Proposition 8 Supreme Court hearing on March 5, a justices asked the lawyer representing unwed same-sex couples why Proposition 8 represents a denial of fundamental rights when same-sex couples still have the legal benefits of marriage through domestic partnerships.
“Is it your argument in this proceeding that the passage of Proposition 8 also took away, in addition to the label of marriage, the core of substantive rights of marriage this court outlined in its decision last year?” Kennard asked.
The reply: “One of the core constitutional rights is to be treated with equality, dignity and respect.”
This issue is not about the rights of a minority. It’s about bad public policy. “We’re not taking any rights away. It’s not a question of rights. It’s a question of what is the public interest. What is the common good. Nobody has a right to a particular behavior if it is going to undermine society.” (Chuck Colson)
Propenents of the “gay agenda” are systematically setting the stage for same-sex marriage and the silencing of those who would call their lifestyle immoral and sinful. HB 300 would be a key and very dangerous foundation in their efforts, and it must not be allowed to pass.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Vote NO on this madness
March 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I agree with Mr. Colson and others that this is not an issue of respect or equality on any level, and don’t be fooled into believing otherwise. It is yet another bold & deceiving move to thurst into the mainstream ideas that undermine that basis of our society – turning every kind of perversion into a MUST BE ACCEPTED issue, thereby distroying all value to life with Moral value going first but quickly followed by all the rest.
HB 300 has got to fail, or society and life as we now know it surely will.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Right now if my partner and I wanted to rent an apartment, the landlord could deny us a lease based on the fact that we are gay. This bill would protect us in that situation. Chuck Colson is right, its not about taking rights away, but it is about offering protection. Which unfortunately we need due to the judgement that we are subjected to of which this site offers an excellent example.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 am
Whomever wrote this blog post clearly hasn’t read PA HB 300 and has no real clue what it says or what it would do. The basis of it has absolution nothing to do with elevating any behavior and it totally and completely about protecting women and men for being discriminated against in employment, housing and public accommodations. This protection is already explicit in the vast majority of the Fortune 500 companies, and is policy in all of the leading economic companies across our country today. There is nothing radical about it. This legislation is already present in 13 various municipalities across the state including the largest metropolitan areas. Pittsburgh has had these policies in place for over 20 years! Most of PA’s neighbors already provide this protect as well as many locations across the country.
It is an outright lie to claim that these protections would lead to same-sex marriage, and it is also a lie to suggest that anti-discrimination legislation has play any role what-so-ever in any state’s actions towards marriage equality.
I really don’t care if everyone believes this is a good thing, but I find it frightening that the so-called moralists use lies and half-truths to try and persuade people to see things their way. Lying is a sin!
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
1959: California Unruh Civil Rights Act: “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
1955: Pennsylvania Human Relations Act: “Prohibiting certain practices of discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and others as herein defined.”.
2005: Legal protections for sexual orientation, gender and marital status added to the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.
2009: HB 300: If passed, would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
May 15, 2008: The CA Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation was a ‘suspect classification’. The court determined that since the law distinguishes people according to their sexual orientation, there was no ‘compelling interest’ to withhold marriage to same-sex couples. Therefore, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
???? ??, ????: If HB 300 passes into law, what is stopping the PA Supreme Court to say sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” and legalize same-sex marriage?
March 27th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Dan,
The Supreme Court decision was over-turned by a referendum, and was based solely on the justices reading of the CA constitution. This document is not the same as the PA constitution, so to think that the PA justices would do the same is really stupid. But that said, Inter-racial marriage was not won on a state by state basis. It was the decision, Loving vs Virginia that ended the ban on interracial marriage across the country. We will see the same thing with gay marriage, and it is already too late to stop that. HB 300 will have nothing to do with it.
It is sad , as I look at your timeline. PA was at one time a leader in civil rights, but falls further and further behind.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Well said Thomas. It is an embarrassment that PA is falling behind in civil rights. How does one explain that people in PA are AGAINST protecting citizens who are gay and that it should be OK to deny them housing, schooling, etc. based on that (read talking points)! The talking points on why one should be against HB 300 is like something out of another place and time. I’ve met so many people who think like those talking points, but I let them get to me first, then tell them I am gay, and you know what, every single time they change their position.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Even if someone believes homosexuality is immoral, it doesn’t give them a right to fire people for it. If we start firing employees on the basis of their “sins,” we’ll all soon be unemployed.
Hiring someone who happens to be gay doesn’t mean you “accept their lifestyle,” (whatever THAT means); it just means you found them a qualified candidate for the job. I just don’t see how someone’s sexual orientation has any bearing whatsoever on their ability to do their job?