For the first time, the Pennsylvania House will consider a bill to recognize same-sex marriage. For LGBT Pennsylvanians, who do not yet have statewide nondiscrimination protections, this is a huge step.
Last week, Rep. Babette Josephs (D-182nd Dist.) and seven cosponsors introduced HB 1835, which would allow marriage equality.
Earlier this year, Rep. Mark Cohen (D-202nd Dist.) and 43 cosponsors introduced a bill to allow for civil unions. That bill, HB 708, was referred to the Judiciary Committee in February.
Pennsylvania currently restricts marriage to one man and one woman, but has not gone through the extra step of amending the state constitution with a one-man/one-woman definition of marriage.
In May, Rep. Darryl Metcalfe (R-12th Dist.) introduced a bill to amend the constitution; the bill, with 35 cosponsors, was referred to the Judicial Committee.
Though progress has been slow in our Republican-leaning state, it has been coming. In a Franklin and Marshall poll conducted in August, half of those surveyed said they favored or somewhat favored a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage. In addition, 62 percent supported civil unions, with varying degrees of support.
Pennsylvania lags behind most of its neighboring states on the issues of LGBT rights, including nondiscrimination and marriage.
New York has statewide antidiscrimination protections and legalized marriage in June. New Jersey and Delaware have statewide antidiscrimination protections for sexual orientation and provide civil unions. Maryland also has statewide protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Of these four, New Jersey is the only state to prohibit gender-identity discrimination across the board.
The conversation on marriage equality has been evolving over the past decade; before that, it was barely part of the dialogue for gay and lesbian couples, much less society at large.
Although it might seem counterintuitive to focus on marriage equality as opposed to nondiscrimination protections, it’s understandable why marriage is important to the sexual-minority community.
Marriage, as an institution, holds a uniquely sacred place in society. Regardless of a couple’s expectations of the union, society, family and friends all have a concept of marriage that is hard to broaden, upend or change: To society, marriage equates to family unit.
Whether that definition of marriage is merited or hooey for a particular couple, society, government, hospitals, police, family and friends all recognize it.
Which means that, if a couple isn’t married, they automatically have a “less-than” relationship. Regardless of recognition, this holds true for both opposite- and same-sex couples.
Rightly or wrongly, good or bad, sacred or institution, marriage is a civil right. And if the government is going to sanction such unions, it needs to do so equally.