"Nonsense", said Sen. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia.
“When you enter this language into the Constitution, you’re begging to overthrow
Devlin and everything else.”
Devlin v. Philadelphia assured that same-sex rights were
permissible as long as there was nothing to create a “functional
equivalent of marriage.” A constitutional amendment could eliminate all
benefits, Fumo pointed out. With tongue-in-cheek reasoning, Fumo thrust
home his concern by suggesting an amendment to the proposed amendment.
If same-sex marriage destroys the institution of marriage, why not ban
all divorce, he suggested.
As a windstorm of protests
emerged, the senators ran for the shelter of political expediency.
Since the state’s House of Representatives probably wouldn’t waste its
time on such an outrageous display of public pandering, the Senate
tabled the bill and blamed the House. This is the political “two-step.”
The senators could continue to spout moral and religious bigotry while
blaming some else for the problem.
A week after the
Pennsylvania Senate’s blunderbusses blew up in their face, California
became the second state, after Massachusetts, to throw out a state law
against same-sex marriage. California’s law was passed in 2000 by 61
percent of the voters.
In an overview of the issue, Chief
Justice Ronald M. George, a Republican, noted, “[An] individual’s
capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship
with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does
not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation.” In his majority
opinion, George cited a 1948 California case that overturned a law that
banned interracial marriage. “An individual's sexual orientation—like a
person’s race or gender— does not constitute a legitimate basis upon
which to deny or withhold legal rights,” he wrote.
This is
not an activist/liberal court that conservatives so frequently blame
for what they see as all of the nation’s problems. “The decision was a
bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated
court that legal scholars have long dubbed ‘cautious,’” noted the
Los Angeles Times.
The religious right and conservative movements aren’t bending over and
taking their defeats. They’re gathering signatures to place onto the
November ballot a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage.
That amendment would be more powerful than any state law. Ironically,
such a constitutional amendment may be unconstitutional.
Twenty-six states have laws that ban same-sex marriage, and Florida
already has a proposed constitutional amendment ready for the November
election. For conservatives, apparently, there isn’t enough
governmental intrusion when it comes to continuing bigotry.
Walter Brasch is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University and
president of the Pennsylvania Press Club. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through amazon.com. You may contact Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website at: www.walterbrasch.com.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
