FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 17, 2008
EXPERT EXPLAINS LANGUAGE OF PENNSYLVANIA MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
HARRISBURG (March 17) – Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) attorney Richard Connell, Esq., of the Ball Murren and Connell law firm in Camp Hill was among a number of experts who testified today at a Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Connell presented arguments in favor of SB 1250 – the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment.
The bill proposes amending the state constitution with this sentence: “No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.” If passed, Pennsylvania would be added to the list of 27 other states that have marriage protection amendments in their state constitutions.
Connell explained that the term “functionally equivalent” in the amendment would not prevent any employer or other organization from conferring benefits to same-sex partners or any other unmarried person.
Citing the 2004 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Devlin v. City of Philadelphia (580 Pa. 564, 862 A.2d 1234), Connell said, “Essentially, the Court said that the City could grant health benefits and maintain domestic partnership status for those in its employ and that the conferral of such benefits and the creation of the status was not the functional equivalent of marriage.
“The language means that the Pennsylvania courts or the General Assembly could not create a status just like marriage but by some other name, whether that might be a civil union or some other term not yet part of the popular vernacular. It does nothing more and nothing less.”
Connell added that 19 of the 27 states with marriage protection amendments prohibit marriage-like relationships that are “substantially similar” or “functionally equivalent.” He said, “This is not a new idea. Pennsylvania is not alone.” On the question of why the amendment is not simply the same as the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Connell cited a court case in Iowa. Recently a trial court ruled that state’s DOMA to be unconstitutional. He also pointed out a case in Maryland. Maryland’s DOMA was challenged. By a narrow margin, in a 4-3 decision, Maryland’s highest appellate court upheld the DOMA but noted that the legislature there was not precluded by DOMA from establishing civil unions, the functional equivalent of marriage. (Conaway, et al. v. Denne, et al., 401 Md. 219, 932 A.2d 571 (2007) “Maryland’s DOMA was only one slim vote away from being rendered meaningless,” he said, “These real court decisions make it clear that only an amendment like that set forth in SB 1250 can be definitive on the subject.” Connell also expressed urgency for passing the bill citing the long process for amending the state constitution, “We must pass this amendment now. If not, it could be several more years before citizens have the chance to vote on marriage. By then, it could be too late.”
The PCC, the public affairs agency of the Pennsylvania Catholic Bishops is urging passage of SB 1250 – the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment.
# # #