This is very cool:
HARRISBURG -- A bill that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage is in a deep coma and is probably dead, at least for the rest of this session.
Faced with staunch opposition to the measure in the Democrat-controlled House, the main sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, asked the Senate last evening to table the bill indefinitely, and it agreed.
.....
But Mr. Brubaker said last evening he'd learned the bill, if it did get through the Senate, would be sent to the House State Government Committee, where it likely wouldn't be acted on anytime soon. That panel is chaired by Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, who strongly opposed putting a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution. Democrats control the House by a slim margin of 102-101.
In other words, Rep. Josephs just did what no Democrat in the Senate could do: Stop awful, ridiculous and bigoted legislation from even coming to a vote. Very, very cool.
Elections have consequences, and this vote shows how important it is that Democrats keep- and build- on their 1 vote majority in the House.
Kudos to Rep. Josephs for standing up for common sense and basic humanity.
I should add
And thanks for not making me embarrassed to be from PA, as we sit across from a State slowly on its way to real marriage equality.
Very cool. Ha. Give me a
Very cool. Ha. Give me a break. I tell you what would be cool if Rep. Josephs actually showed some leadership and seniority and sponsored and helped pass a bill giving gays and lesbians the same rights as married straight people. Unfortunately, like on so many other important issues she has done nothing at all. Her time is up.
How Important Is The Word "Marriage?"
I firmly believe that there is a clear legislative majority in both Houses of the legislature to pass a civil unions bill that has the support of gay communities across the commonwealth.
Right now, there is no such bill.
If people, especially those active in gay and gay rights organizations, want such a bill to pass, they should make that clear to legislators and organizational leaders alike. There is no current consensus in the gay community about whether civil unions should be measured against the lack of rights gay couples currently have, or whether they should be measured against the cutrrent gay marriage law in Massachusetts.
Right now, there are enough people who believe that civil unions inherently represent a form of second class citizenship that there is no momentum for their passage. The belief of pro-gay rights civil union opponents is that the gay rights position should be to "hold out" for gay marriage no matter how long it takes. Their belief is fortified by experiences in New Jersy where a list of rights granted by civil union legislation turned out to be only a partial list of marriage rights.
There is also a feeling that the next task ought to be to pass a bill banning employment discrimination against gays, something I have supported for decades but something that all too many legislators have problems supporting. As early as the 1976 Presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter proposed such a statute at the federal level, but 32 years later, it still has not been passed. There obviously is significant resistance to it.
I am a believer in the Martin Luther King concept--which Barack Obama has repreatedly quoted and raised to a new level of prominence--of "the fierce urgency of now." Undoubtedly, the fact that my name is frequently on the ballot encourages that belief.
Beyond that though I have seen all too many cases in which progressive organizations have held out for too much and gained too little. I recall attending a 2004 conference on single payer health insurance, for instance, in which a union leader recalled how proudly he and some of his colleagues attacked President Nixon for offering what they then said was a totally inadedquate health care proposal.
Three decades of subsequent inaction, however, changed perspectives. "We'd kill for the Nixon proposal today," the union leader said in 2004.
The Rendell governorship is an opportunity that is fleeting. He now has only a little more than 2 and a half years left. I hope that more and more people--focused on many, many issues--would recognize that he is one of the most progressive governors Pennsylvania has ever had and would rush to take advantage of his tenure before it ends.
yea so what are you gonna do?
Mark aren't you in leadership in the Dem caucus? I mean maybe I am misreading your comment, but it seems like you are either throwing the ball back to LGBT advocates or not identifying a next step at all. What exactly are you saying above, and what are you going to do?
Also, let's not forget that same-sex marriage or civil unions are hardly the pinnacle of the LGBT rights movement. Christ, we don't even have protection yet from being fired for being queer. Speaking of, how is HB 1400 going?
Oh, and what about state funding of Mazonni center, statewide LGBT education curriculum standards, equal pay for equal work for women and men, and a statewide bill allowing LGBT kids to be placed with LGBT friendly families (another bill tabled in the House)?
I agree about the urgency of now and i am trying to ascertain the House Dem plan to get moving.
HB1400 is a good one
Because even if many Pennsylvanians still have gut reaction that complicates the ucoupling of civil "marriage" from its religious pr sacramental significance, many, many of those people who still balk at marriage or civil unions will say noone should face job discrimination based on sexual preference. In my experience, in fact, many folks in the "rest" of PA not in cities where there are laws barring job discrimination are often quite surprised to find out it is not already illegal.
Something many people assume to already be the law seems like a pretty low bar for achievability to me.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
genderqueers
I sort of agree Sean, but the bulk of employment discrimination is not in regard to the knowledge of same-sex attraction, so much as it is about employees (or potential hires)with "non-normative" genders, ranging from a woman who is a bit too butch (wears too many pants suits and not enough makeup) or a man who has a bit too much swish in his hips, or outright refusal to hire (or decision to fire) someone who is transitioning gender (I knew a trans woman from my time in Pittsburgh who was a host at Eat n Park for years, and was fired when she began to wear makeup and women's clothing to work) or who just does not conform to any gender norms.
Which I guess is my larger point to Mark, same-sex marriage for good gays (which i guess is me to some extent) is important, but hardly the be-all or end all. So I very much agree with you that 1400 should be a huge focus, but just saying its reality is in some ways more controversial (which is why the HRC, Pelosi and Frank sold out LGB and especially T folks at the national level in Congress).
Not Clear That "Bulk of Employment Discrimination" Is Covered
It's not at all clear that most of what Ray Murphy calls the "bulk of employment discrimination" is covered by House Bill 1400. I do not have information, and would welcome information, about what the experience has been under the various local governmental laws in effect in Pennsylvania, and what the experience has been in the states that have banned discrimination against gays.
I have doubts because I am well aware that anti-discrimination in general is a limited tool. The general question is whether there is a "pattern and practice" of discrimination. Except under extraordinarily rare circumstances, there is no affirmative duty to hire or promote any given person, even if that person is the best qualified for the job.
The result is that blacks who least remind white people of negative stereotypes are the ones that are most likely to be hired. Blacks with names common among white people, one recent study found, are far more likely to be interviewed and hired than blacks with names not common among white people. Similarly blacks with credentials, life experiences, and patterns of speech similar to those of white people likely to be hired are much more likely to be hired than blacks without them.
Anti-discrimination law protects women from being required to wear revealing clothing unless doing so is part of the uniform of the job (i.e., a waitress at Hooters). But there is no legal right to express sexuality--by clothing, touching, soliciting dates, propositioning, or generally acting as though one is sexually desirable or sexually available. Employers have substantial power to limit the expression of sexuality in the workplace, and they have the affirmative duty to ensure that people are not made uncomfortable and feeling harassed by a "hostile environment" that views employees as sexual objects, exposes employees against their will to sexual stimuli, or that rewards employees for sexual acts.
not clear?
Gener identity and expression is covered by the bill. Bolding is mine from the bill's language:
Are you expressing doubts that any bill re: employment non-discrimination can have an impact? It may not, just like same-sex marriage won't end all the problems LGBT people experiecne, but it would establish some legal precedent for our rights in PA which currently, barely exist.
I want to emphasize that what matters the most in terms of the protection this bill does offer is gender identity expression. Are you saying you don't believe that?
I can dig up some data for you, though you have to remember there isn't a lot of money available or interest in studying these kinds of things from the cruel, cold straight world, but i am sure I can find you something.
There is a more fundamental point here though which is being ignored. There are a lot of people who are really scared by a man acting "like a woman," or a woman "acting like a man," and particularly in work places, employers are scared of any gender deviance, let alone actual trans-identified folks. If you ask anyone in the LGBt community, they'll acknowledge that their butcher female friends and femme male friends often have a harder time walking down the street, getting a job, even going into a store. That's why this bill protects them.
But enough blogging! Mark, I can't wait to receive an invite from you as a LGBT community org leader (or "gay advocate" as you call us) to discuss this further.
Let Me Know How To Get In Touch With You
Ray, please call 717-787-4117 and leave a messsage about how I can get in touch with you about coming to such a meeting. Equality Advocates and the ACLU are among those that I hope will be there, so you may also want to get in touch with Stacey Sobel and/or Larry Frankel.
avilable online
http://www.libertycity.org/contact/
legal recourse is crucial
Sure, passing a law is not going to fix everything, and I appreciate your point that what a court or judge will find to be discrimination is only a subset of the discrimination that actually occurs. But to have no legal recourse at all is outrageous. Once we get some precedent, we can work to expand how it is understood. But until we get those rights, we have very little to make our case on.
67 Democrats and 4 Republicans Are Co-Sponsors
67 Democrats and 4 Republicans (all outside of Philadelphia, all but the retiring David Steil from outside the Philadelphia area) are co-Sponsors of House Bill 1400.
Any help that Sean could produce from his ally David Oh or any other Republicans to boost the number of Republican co-sponsors upward would be helpful and appreciated by many.
First Step Is To Meet With Gay Advocates
My first step looking ahead is to meet (I strongly hope) with gay advocates next week to work out plans for the future.
I strongly believe the lowest hanging fruit that is easiest to pass is a civil unions bill. That in two consecutive sessions attempts to ban civil unions (in addition to the current ban on gay marriage) have failed is a sign of support. Equal pay for equal work for women and men has long been the law in Pennsylvania and in the United States; the reason women earn less than men is generally that they have different jobs. The battle to raise women's wages has focused on the concept of comparable worth, which is too complicated to be easily administered and easily defended by many.
I will vote for and advocate for a ban on employment discrimination and LGBT education curriculum standards as I have done in the past. I am the only member of the House on both the State Government Committee and the Rules Committee, the two committees most important for gay rights legislation.
But my vote is not the issue: the issue is whether there is going to be enough mobilization in other areas of the state to overcome the opposition from the Catholic Conference, the Knights of Columbus, and other organizations with similar views.
The simple fact is that there is a strong need for more interaction than there has been between legislative leaders and the various gay communities around the state, and an even stronger need for more intereaction between gay communities and the more conservative members of the House in both political parties.
I wish I could tell you that all legislators need to pass gay friendly legislation is the statement that Mark Cohen is for it; but almost always they insist on knowing that they have constituents who are for it.
(giggle)
I have to admit, I giggled a bit when I read "lowest hanging" given the nature of this thread, but I am in total agreement that this will be a slow process with a lot of small battles rather than one big fight. Homophobia is long entrenched in this city despite having a very vocal and for the most part positive LGBT community. The day I can officially marry my partner will be better than winning the super bowl, world series, stanley cup, and NBA championship all in the same year!
Obama 2008
not for me
Hey Teddy, i totally respect where you are coming from, but for me, the day i can marry my partner will be a big deal, but not the biggest deal. I just think it is really important that we in our LGBT community, and those outside, realize that letting same-sex couples marry (or civil union) won't fix the real problems: a fear of men and women doing and saying things outside of gender norms, including the sex they have, and the way they act.
It'll help, but civil unions won't be the pinnacle.
And probably no legislation can fix these cultural issues of oppression, but we need to see the Mark Cohens of the world (ie legislators) understand that taking the "M" and the "F" off of a transpass, or making sure LGBT kids in foster homes are places with friendly families, or better funding Mazzoni, or making it illegal to discriminate in housing and employmen, are EQUALLY IMPORTANT to getting marriage rights.
2 kinds of conservatives
Just to throw this out there for consideration. Fiscal conservatives who go along with social conservatives for the economic policy seem like they could be potentially be peeled away for something as common sense sounding as ending job and housing discrimination whereas they seem more likely to stick with their conservative cohorts against something "new" like civil unions but I could be wrong.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Indeed!!
I had the chance to meet and chat with Kevin Lee from DelCo this past weekend. I hope his successful campaign helps steer things in the right direction!!
Obama 2008
marriage rights and social justice
yeah. I'm for marriage rights as far as I believe that people should have the right to create, love, and provide for their own families, but to me it's really the right to be yourself without negative physical, economic, or social effects. So like Ray said, housing and employment rights - for everyone, regardless of who you love, how you love, how you identify, and how you present yourself - are two of my priorities. And healthcare, which to me means funding Mazzoni and other centers that can be safe spaces for LGBT folks to seek care, getting coverage for hormones and sex reassignment surgeries, and comprehensive safe sex ed and resources, among other issues.
language question
This is terrific that you're planning a meeting with leaders to strategize, but as Ray has implied, I do hope that while you're using the term "gay advocates," you're thinking more broadly of the LGBT communities and including the gender identity issues as well as the sexual orientation issues.
Well we're dishing out credit
Let's give credit to a coalition of Democrats (Mellow, Fumo, & Ferlo) and Republicans (Vance, Earll, and Browne) in the Senate that were prepared to move forward with an amendment that would have gutted most of the bill.
Apparently this coalition had enough commitments to win passage. While this would have left the bill with its 'marriage is defined as between man and a woman' the intent of this move was to achieve the same - scuttle the bill.
The more hateful (including its sponsor Sen. Brubaker) of the Senate didn't want the bill to NOT exclude civil unions (and other counterfeit versions of marriage (to use their words)).
Remember this is how we won last year - the Senate stripped the language that included everything else outside of marriage and the then Republican controlled House - refused to entertain it since it didn't include civil unions, etc.
AM