Your Answer Matters

Protecting DOMA Protects PA

youranswer — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:35:26 +0000

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act must be defended to ensure the integrity of our government and the protection of state rights defining marriage.

Our president has no right to act as judge and sole policy maker when it comes to any current federal law.

America is a Republic; not a dictatorship. President Obama’s actions against DOMA deliberately undercut the laws that our Department of Justice is duty-bound to defend.

Congress passed overwhelmingly the Defense of Marriage Act and was signed by then-President Bill Clinton.

DOMA is the only federal law protecting the nearly 40 state-enacted DOMAs and 31 marriage amendments to state constitutions.

This law must be defended by Congress to protect current law and the integrity of our branches of state and federal government.

A Look at the Prop. 8 Ruling

youranswer — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:03:10 +0000

The following are quotes from the recent federal district court opinion issued in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This case of judicial activism declared Proposition 8 (defining marriage to be between husband and wife & passed by California voters) unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution:

Click here to read the full court opinion.

Factual Finding:

#48: “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”

#70: “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”

#71: “Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”

#77: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

#72: “The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes.”

Conclusion of Law:

p. 113: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

p. 113: “Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”

p. 113: “The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage.”

p. 114: “Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose and form of marriage.”

p. 124: “Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”

p. 124: “Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.”

p. 127: “Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”

p. 127: “…same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality….”

p. 130: “Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same.”

p. 132: “Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”

Click here for more legal information regarding this case.

The Core Civil Right to Vote for Marriage

youranswer — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:47:34 +0000

by Maggie Gallagher. Originally posted on Townhall.com – click here for the article.

This week, the Proposition 8 trial draws to a close.

This is the trial that never should have been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Ted Olson, once a GOP advocate for judicial restraint. Yet this week, he will be pleading with the judge to nullify the votes of 7 million Californians — and, by extension, the votes of millions of Americans in other states who have exercised their right to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not a case about California law. This is the case that will decide the future of marriage for the entire country.

When I entered this debate in 2003, gay marriage advocates scoffed at the idea that a federal constitutional amendment was necessary. Now gay marriage advocates applaud as Ted Olson tells the world that our marriage laws are grounded only in hatred and bigotry, that they are akin to racism. Ted Olson’s team actually read Catholic and Baptist doctrine into the court record, to persuade the judge that to be a Christian is to be a bigot.

Will it go that far?

I hope not. But that is the heart of the case against Prop 8: Gay marriage advocates believe there isn’t any difference between two men in a sexual union and a husband and wife, and those of us who see this difference are blinded by hatred and prejudice. They delegitimize opponents, brand us as haters, and then try to strip us of our rights.

The trial that wraps up this week in California has a special resonance for me and many others. Hundreds of thousands of Americans invested their time, their treasure, their blood, sweat and tears to defend at the ballot box what they saw as an important principle: Marriage is the bringing together of male and female in a union like no other.

For these Americans, gay marriage does not merely expand marriage to more people, it abolishes the historic core conception of marriage and replaces it with a new government-mandated genderless marriage. Gay marriage means that our maleness and femaleness does not matter, our capacity to create new life is irrelevant to the public project of marriage. Henceforth by government decree marriage will mean a commitment of any two people; marriage will become a product of individual desire not rooted in any natural order, not rooted in our history or traditions and, incidentally, also not rooted in any coherent vision of constitutional limits on what government courts can do.

I am flying to San Francisco to be there at this historic moment, to live blog the event for the National Organization for Marriage. The last time I was in the Bay Area a few months ago I was sitting in an upscale bar in Oakland talking to a friend. A young woman, pretty, well-dressed, educated, walked over to my table and proceeded to yell at me. “You should be ashamed of yourself!” she said. I looked her in the eye and told her simply I was very proud of the work that I did, although I understood she disagreed. That made her even madder. “You should go South,” she sputtered. “Go South, this is San Francisco!”

Actually it was Oakland, but I took her point. It was an illuminating moment. Here was an educated young woman who believed she had a right to purify an entire American city of those who disagreed with her about gay marriage. She behaved in a way that I would describe as uncivilized, but she saw herself as a great champion of civility, of tolerance, and of civil rights.

Ted Olson will talk in court this week like a civilized man. But Ted Olson, as much as any one man, is responsible for the idea that there is no real debate to be had about gay marriage, that all the legitimacy, all the arguments, all the good will and good reasons are on his side. He will be asking this judge to disrespect the views of his fellow Americans, to brand them ignorant, irrational and bigoted, and to take away our right to vote for marriage. And he will be bathed in applause for doing so.

1 Man, 1 Woman: 11 Reasons Why Pennsylvania Needs a Marriage Protection Amendment

youranswer — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:25:11 +0000

States without a marriage amendment have had their marriage law declared unconstitutional. What unfolded in Iowa and currently is unraveling in Minnesota can happen here in Pennsylvania. Both lacked the protection of marriage in their state Constitution. A court case challenging their current marriage law was filed. In Iowa, the court then ruled that their marriage law was unconstitutional; therefore legalizing same-sex “marriage” in that state.
Our marriage law is being challenged by same-sex couples seeking to legalize their union. During “Marriage Equality Week” in Pennsylvania, same-sex couples from around the state went to district court offices and demanded marriage licenses. They were obviously denied but it set the scene for a lawsuit to be brought up against our current definition of marriage.
Our marriage law is being challenged by same-sex couples seeking a legal divorce. A same-sex couple from Berks County, married in Massachusetts and moved to our state, asked a court judge to grant them a legal divorce. This local case argued that marriage between husband and wife is unconstitutional because it “infringed on the right” of marriage.
Legislation has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would legalize same-sex “marriage”. SB 935, if passed, would define marriage to be between “any two persons” and radically redefine our existing law.
Legislation has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would legalize civil unions. Civil unions are the equivalent of marriage, just under a different name. If passed, this provides more evidence for lawmakers and court judges to declare our current definition of marriage unconstitutional.
Legalizing same-sex marriage is a top priority of local organizations in Pennsylvania. Organizations such as the ACLU-PA have placed as the top priority on their “gay rights” agenda the legalization of same-sex “marriage”.
THIRTY other states have done it. A Marriage Protection Amendment is not ground-breaking legislation in America. 30 other states followed their constitutional amendment process. In all 30 states, voters agreed with protecting their current definition of marriage.
Pennsylvania’s religious institutions continue to remain vulnerable. As seen in cases such as Catholic Charities or other church groups around the country, tax-exempt status can be challenged or parts of religious operations be forced to shut down with the state redefining marriage.
Our children’s education remains vulnerable. The redefinition of marriage would allow Pennsylvania students as young as kindergarten to be taught about same-sex families and the homosexual lifestyle.
The majority of Pennsylvanians want their Constitutional right to vote on this issue. A recent statewide poll shows that an overwhelming 78% of fellow Pennsylvanians desire the opportunity to vote on the issue of defining marriage. [1]
Pennsylvania support for a vote on amending our Constitution crossed gender, age, racial, regional, political and ideological lines. The recent poll, affirming our past polling, has shown that we desire to see the constitutional amendment process come to fruition and bring a vote to the people on this issue.

[1] The statistics on marriage are from a statewide survey of Pennsylvania registered voters conducted in October 2009 by the polling company™, inc./WomanTrend and released by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy.

How Close We Came to Losing It: Pennsylvania, Marriage & The Courts

youranswer — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:45:45 +0000

Joni Mitchell’s classic song from 1970, “Big Yellow Taxi,” says “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.” Some say Philadelphia Eagles fans will soon feel that way about Donovan McNabb, and perhaps so. But this is about a much weightier matter. I think Pennsylvanians ought to know just how close they came to seeing the long-standing definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife gone.

In a recent case involving a lesbian couple, a Berks County judge was asked to throw out Pennsylvania’s marriage laws. The legal brief argued that “it is time to change our definitions…” This was a direct challenge to how Pennsylvania’s government has always treated marriage.

In specific, a lesbian woman from Berks County sought to divorce her same-sex partner. The two women were hitched in Massachusetts under that state’s law (changed by court order), and one asked a Pennsylvania judge to end their marriage, and while he was at it, to also end marriage as we know it in Pennsylvania.

A judge with a political agenda (“activist judge”) could very well have used this case to strike down our Defense of Marriage Act, and ordered legalization of “same-sex marriage.” That very thing happened in Iowa one year ago.

But this judge, Scott Lash, followed the law. He did not grant a divorce, reasoning that a judge cannot decree a divorce for persons who are not married in accordance with the laws of our state.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that our marriage law was “unconstitutional;” that their same-sex marriage should be recognized and a divorce granted. Judge Lash found no grounds in the Constitution compelling him to strike down our law, and for the record he stated why natural marriage receives the recognition and protection in law that it does:

The family is the basic unit of society. It represents one man and one woman coming together to form one being. From this union, comes offspring. Conversely, a same-sex relationship deviates from this traditional concept, for the principals are like beings, without physical complement. They cannot foster offspring, except through artificial or adoptive means.
Of course, a same-sex couple can maintain a loving, monogamous relationship…. This relational commitment, however, does not and could not qualify as a “traditional marriage.”

The judge is right about marriage. It serves a unique and vital role in society, bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers committed to each other and to them. All the family experimentation over the past 40 years — no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, cohabitation — have been documented failures, precisely because they ignored the public purpose of marriage.

Perhaps it was that same ignorance that led eight members of the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee last month to table (indefinitely delay) SB 707, the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment. Their vote keeps marriage at risk and denies citizens of Pennsylvania a vote on keeping marriage the union of husband and wife. Citizens in 31 states have voted on that question, and in all of them they solidly chose to keep marriage what it truly is.

Five years ago, Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled on a case strikingly similar to the one here. But the Iowa court ruled the opposite way, and upheld a lesbian couple’s divorce. In response, Iowans who saw the handwriting on the wall pleaded with their elected officials to protect marriage through constitutional amendment.

But like Pennsylvania, Iowa’s amendment process is arduous. Amendments must be approved in two successive legislative sessions before going to a vote of the people. If lawmakers fail to act, the people are denied a vote. Thus far, citizens of both states have been denied. In Iowa’s case, their Supreme Court followed its own lead, overturned that state’s marriage law, and legalized same-sex marriage.

And so, without clear language in our state constitution defining marriage between husband and wife, marriage here remains vulnerable to the whims of judges. Protecting marriage should be front and center for Pennsylvania lawmakers. Without a state constitutional amendment, we are but one case away from radically changing marriage law against the will of the people.

Marriage may not be paradise, but it is the proven foundation of society. Paving it over with a newer and trendier model will only further weaken that foundation, to the detriment of families, children and all of society. It could have happened last month in Berks County; it could happen in another court next month.

Let’s protect it now.

This was written by Michael Geer, president of the Harrisburg-based Pennsylvania Family Institute.

How Senators Hide the Truth

youranswer — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:17:39 +0000

As we fully expected, some Senators who voted to table SB 707, the Marriage Protection Amendment, are now telling constituents “there was no vote on SB 707″ or “I didn’t vote against it.”

Contrary to the purpose of the motion to table, in the case of SB 707 lawmakers voted to table to kill the bill, with the intent of then telling constituents they did nothing of the sort. Here are the facts of what happened on SB 707 today:

A few weeks ago, Senate Bill 707 was placed on the official calendar of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be voted upon.

At the meeting, when the bill was brought up for consideration, Sen. Daylin Leach (D) Montgomery, made a motion to table the bill. The motion was seconded, and the chairman of the committee took a roll-call vote on the motion to table.

There were eight senators who voted AYE on the motion to table (thereby in effect killing SB 707 for this session), and six who voted NAY. We notified Senators and citizens that we considered an AYE vote on a motion to table be a vote AGAINST SB 707.

Unfortunately, many legislators prefer voting on procedural motions (like tabling), so that they can avoid being held responsible for the defeat of a bill. That, we contend, is the case with today’s vote to table SB 707

The vote today by the Senate Judiciary Committee was to table SB 707. By tabling the bill, it halted advancement of the marriage amendment in PA and likely ended its chances of being passed this legislative session. Indeed, a press release from the chief opponent of SB 707, Sen. Daylin Leach this afternoon stated:

Sen Daylin Leach announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated a bill that would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The opponents of SB 707 consider the vote to table the bill the equivalent to a vote to defeat it. We believe that legislators should be held accountable for that vote.

The Marriage Protection Amendment is vital to protect marriage in Pennsylvania. Any vote taken against the SB 707, whether by tabling, amending or directly voting against, is rightly viewed as an action against protecting marriage.

The bottom line: SB 707 would give the citizens of Pennsylvania the opportunity to vote on marriage. The votes of 8 Senators today denies them that opportunity.

Sad Day in Harrisburg

youranswer — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:26:37 +0000

It’s a sad day in Harrisburg as marriage in Pennsylvania continues to remain vulnerable to redefinition. All 5 democrats and 3 republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee halted the advancement SB 707, the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment.

The latest polling in Pennsylvania indicates a vast majority of citizens believe they should have the opportunity to vote on a marriage protection amendment. Today, eight State Senators voted to deny us that opportunity.

Here is a list of the eight Senators who voted to kill SB 707:

Sen. Lisa Boscola: District 18- Bethlehem (610) 868-8667
Sen. Patrick Browne: District 16- Allentown 610-821-8468
Sen. Jay Costa: District 43- Pittsburgh 412-241-6690
Sen. Jane Earll: District 49- Erie 814-453-2515
Sen. Wayne Fontana: District 42- Pittsburgh 412-344-2551
Sen. Daylin Leach: District 17- Del, Mont Cos. 610-768-4200
Sen. Mike Stack: District 5- Philadelphia 215-281-2539
Sen. Mary Jo White: Dist. 21- Franklin, Butler, etc (814) 432-4345

Please call these Senators. Let them know of your discouragement for their lack of supporting the fundamental building block of society and leaving the opportunity of same-sex “marriage” becoming legalized here in our state.

The following Senators voted in favor of SB 707:

Sen. Stewart Greenleaf: Dist 12 Mont., Bucks Cos. 215-657-7700
Sen. John Gordner: Dist 27- Columbia, Luzerne, Dauphin, Montour, Northumb., Snyder 570-784-3464
Sen. Jane Clare Orie: District 40 Pittsburgh North Suburbs 412-630-9466
Sen. Jeffrey Piccola: District 15 Harrisburg area 717-787-6801
Sen. John Rafferty: Dist 44 Montgomery, Berks, Chester 610-831-8830
Sen. Joseph Scarnati: Dist 25 Cameron, Clearfield, Elk, Jefferson, McKean, Potter, Warren 814-726-7201

Please thank these 6 Senators for their support of marriage.

Vote on March 16: Have You Called Your Senator?

youranswer — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:34:36 +0000

Urgent Alert: Marriage Vote Next Week

Whether marriage in Pennsylvania will stay the union of one man and one woman could very well depend on a vote coming next week on March 16th. Please make sure your Senator hears from you before Tuesday’s vote by calling their office today and following up with an email.

Senate Bill (SB) 707, the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, will go to a vote on Tuesday by the 14 Senators of the Judiciary Committee in Harrisburg. If the committee passes SB 707, it allows the process of protecting marriage in PA to move forward; if they do not, the bill is dead for this session and our marriage laws remain vulnerable to redefinition.

The Judiciary Committee members are Senators Boscola, Browne, Costa, Earll, Fontana, Gordner, Greenleaf, Leach, Orie, Piccola, Stack, Scarnati, Rafferty, & M. White.

Please contact your Senator, especially if they are a member of this committee, and ask for their support of SB 707. For contact information, click here.

Note: Depending on when you call, you may not reach the Senator directly. That’s OK. Please ask the staff member to pass on your message in support of SB 707 to the Senator, and request a reply.

Also, your Senator may be a co-sponsor of SB 707 (click here for a list of co-sponsors). If they are, please thank them for their support of marriage.

Pennsylvania For Marriage strongly supports SB 707, which would protect marriage by putting the following definition of marriage into our Constitution: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”

Let us know how your Senator responds to your request. Ask the Senator or the staff member you speak with how the Senator plans to vote. Please email Dan at dbart@pa4marriage.org or call 717-657-4990 with their response.

Thank you.

P.S. This vote is expected to be very close and is an essential step in seeing marriage protected in Pennsylvania. Each vote is of utmost importance. Please call today because your call does make a difference. Ask your friends and family to call him, too.

P.P.S. You are welcome to come to Harrisburg on Tuesday for the committee vote. It is open to the public and begins at 11:30am in Room 8-E of the East Wing of the Capitol.

Click here to email your Senator.

Marriage Isn’t About Love…Just Hear Me Out

youranswer — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:13:12 +0000

“Love and Marriage” is a pairing that sits next to ”Bread and Butter” and “Jack and Jill” in the Hall of Fame of famous duos.

However, marriage itself is not about love. The root definition of marriage is one man and one woman being the foundation of the family.

Love is most often a bond a man and woman share who seek marriage. Love also needs to be nurtured and strengthened in all marriages.

All that said, love doesn’t define marriage. As much as you would hope it would not occur, you can have a marriage without love being in the equation.

“Marriage is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those who association is founded on the distinction of sex” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1891).

No matter your religion, ethnicity or culture, marriage rests upon the principle foundation of being the union of husband and wife.

When you go to get a marriage license, there isn’t a question that asks, “Are you in love?” No counselor waits to weigh the level of love each couple has to determine if they can marry.

When it comes to the public policy of marriage, love is not the root part of the equation. One man + One woman = Marriage. Why? It’s the only mechanism by which humanity continues to exist because it is the only union that can possibly produce children.

It’s no mystery why marriage has always been recognized as a union between husband and wife, has always been essential to society and should never be redefined in any way.

Enough Already! Pennsylvania Marriage Laws in Jeopardy

youranswer — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:17:41 +0000

“Remember this day the next time someone tells you that gay marriage is about love and tolerance, that it won’t have any consequences.”

That’s Brian Brown, executive director for NOM, and his reaction to the government telling the church how to run its charities. Catholic Charities of D.C. was forced to let a third party run their adoption agency because of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in the District of Columbia.

They didn’t want to be forced to close their doors and hurt the many children the adoptive agency helps. That’s exactly what happened to the Catholic Charities in Boston, where they were forced to either shut their doors or compromise their religious beliefs because of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts.

Same-sex “marriage” is not about love. It’s about a radical redefinition of the basic social institution of our society and negatively affecting public policy.

Is it good public policy to force adoption agencies to close their doors because of their religious beliefs?

Is it good public policy to attack the religious freedoms of our churches? (Even if a church is not forced to hold same-sex weddings in its sanctuary, evidence is NJ shows that a state can revoke its tax-exempt status for holding a definition of marriage contrary to the state’s definition.)

Is it good public policy to teach our children, as young as kindergarten, about homosexuality and about families with two daddies and two mommies? Who stops the teaching of homosexuality in schools if teachers simply can point to the legalization of same-sex “marriage”?

Marriage itself is not about love. It’s about bringing together husband and wife to protect and care for the next generation; essential to the well-being of any society.

That is why Pennsylvania needs to protect our marriage laws. Recently same-sex couples in our state went to local courthouses and demanded a marriage license. They were turned away, but promised future legal challenges to get activist judges to declare our marriage law unconstitutional.

Please- Email, Call and/or Visit your Senator today and tell them to support SB 707. Tell your Representative to support SB 707 once passed by the Senate. For more details, visit www.pa4marriage.org or call 717-657-4990.