Pennsylvania Senate Approves Gay Marriage Ban

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/06/062106penAmend.htm

Lawmakers took another step Wednesday toward putting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot in Pennsylvania.

The state Senate approved the proposed amendment 38-12.

Pennsylvania already has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But Sen. Jane Orie and other Republicans warned that without a constitutional amendment, a judge could act on a legal challenge and effectively legalize gay marriage or civil unions.

Opponents questioned the need to guard against a hypothetical challenge. "Mind your own business, stay out of the bedroom," said Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, a Democrat.

to the state house suggesting they ban fag, I mean queer, I mean homo marriage did the trick!" :eyes:

I realize he probably didn't, but I just don't know. I mean, he's so fucked up; I believe he'd say anything.

disappointment that this idea has gotten traction in that state.

well, chalk Pennsylvania Senators up to yet another state that is caving into bigots.

'"Mind your own business, stay out of the bedroom," said Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, a Democrat.' Exactly what business is it of theirs what we do in our bedrooms, who we choose to love and who we want to share legal contracts with? Not to mention, how does legalizing same-sex couples take anything away from their marriages?....it takes nothing away from them!!

:kick:

The east and west "coasts" are predominantly democratic and progressive, and the center, which my father fondly calls "Pennsyl-fuckin-tucky", is predominantly rural, republican, and conservative. PA democrats have always struggled with reigning in the -tuckians conservative agendas.

*edited to add this link
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/PA/P/00/index.html

Am not from PA, but have visited your area before and it's very pretty and relaxing. I moved to a "Republican" state I'm told, but would disagree with that....looks to me more like an even mix of liberals, conservatives and moderates, with more progressive minded people than we're given credit for.

However, I'm very glad I'm not in the center regions - what we use to call growing up, "the bible belt". I'm sure there are a number beautiful areas there and nice people, but I don't think I have the patience for it. I'd probably spend most of my time, everywhere I went, arguing with Bush lovers and bigots. LOL And would probably find my car "bloooowed up." I'm hoping they'll eventually become more progressive. ::crossing fingers::

But no matter where we live, politics is the same: whether we like it or not, it affects our lives, so we might as well affect it.

Btw, welcome to the DU! :)

their Constitutions (if at all possible). If the states don't want to give gays equal rights, they don't need gays' tax money.

And yes....considering the median income of gays and lesbians is higher than straight people, they would really feel it if they didn't collect our taxes.

But then you know that already ;)

But I've read that the notion that the income of gays/lesbians is higher than that of straights is actually a myth:


But one of the things I want to start with in that comment is by saying that often people think that the reason marketers, companies, cities, whoever try to attract gay people is that we're rich; that gay people are just wealthy and that's why we want to bring them to wherever, bring them to the party. And I want to strongly assert that there is no empirical evidence that that is true; and, in fact, all the empirical evidence we have is exactly contrary to that. I have been working on a project with the Human Rights Campaign with newly released census data that allows us to look at some of these characteristics. And in several large states, the median household income of gay and lesbian couples is roughly the same as the median household income of other couples; states like Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan. And even in states where you see median household incomes higher among gay and lesbian couples, like California and New York, if you look at individual incomes, you find that incomes of gay men—generally median incomes fall quite a bit below the incomes of married men and are certainly not any higher than the general income of other men.
http://www.urban.org/publications/900634.html


On the one hand, women in the United States still earn less two-thirds of men's income. For this reason, a gay male household consisting of two men's incomes is the household model with the maximal earning capacity in the country. Even though (according to Professor Lee Badgett's study for the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Studies, reported in The New York Times) straight men do earn more money than gay men, gay men earn so much more than straight women as to still have the combined earning advantage over heterosexual couples. Even though lesbians have a higher level of education than straight women, both lesbian and bisexual women earn less than straight women, who in turn earn less than all men. So, lesbian households have the most disadvantageous income mix possible in the U.S. In other words, whoever lives with a woman loses economically.
http://www.communication.fau.edu/fejes/MMC4930Fall01/markertingschulman.htm




In truth, comparisons of the economic status of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people
with that of heterosexual people in the United States offer the following very
consistent findings, findings that we will explore in some depth in this report :
• Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people do not earn more than heterosexual people.
• Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people do not live in more affluent households than
heterosexual people.
• Two studies suggest that gay men earn less than similarly qualified
heterosexual men.
• Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are found throughout the spectrum of
income distribution: some are poor, a few are rich, and most are somewhere
in the middle, along with most heterosexual people.
http://www.iglss.org/media/files/income.pdf



Nonetheless, if they were to lose our tax dollars as a unit and our voting power, they would feel the pinch.

But yes, your original point is very well taken.