Progress is a slow event. This week, two openly gay judicial candidates won the Democratic nomination in Philadelphia, virtually assuring they will be elected in November. And state Sen. John Eichelberger (R-30th Dist.) announced he would introduce a bill to amend the Pennsylvania constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. He’s presently seeking co-sponsors and might move on the bill in June, when the legislature is back in session.
Two steps forward, one step back.
The judges’ nomination is significant because, if elected, it would mark the election of two more openly gay judges to the bench. Dan Anders, who was appointed by Gov. Rendell in 2007 to fill a vacancy in the Court of Common Pleas, and Dawn Segal, who was running for Municipal Court, would be elected to 10-year terms.
Like the possibility that President Obama may nominate a lesbian to replace Associate Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court — Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan are under consideration — having more openly gay judges increases the diversity on the bench, bringing new perspectives and experiences to the law and thereby increasing fairness and justice.
On the other hand, Eichelberger’s effort to amend the state constitution is frustrating.
At present, Pennsylvania already bans same-sex marriage, has no statewide law to protect sexual minorities in employment, housing and accommodations and doesn’t include sexual-orientation or gender-identity in hate-crimes protections.
At best, his efforts are a distraction from pending legislation that would extend civil-rights and hate-crimes protections based on sexual minority and gender identity status.
At worst, Eichelberger is attacking the LGBT community in an effort to reignite the culture wars in Pennsylvania.
This legislation has had mixed success in the past — passing in both Houses two sessions ago, and in the Senate last session.
With the Democratic gains in the last election, it’s probable the bill would progress even less this session. But it’s not something the LGBT community can take for granted.
The community must make its voice heard — constituents must contact their legislators and tell their stories, talk about how this bill will affect them and how it isn’t needed. Rather than introduce discrimination into the constitution, the legislature should be working to increase equality for all.