Mobile Version: mobile.altoonamirror.com
 
RSS:
Member Login: Email: Password:
Search: Local News Classified EZToUseBigBook Web
Local News  Obituaries  Business  Crime Center  Food Inspections  Editorials  Sports  Life  Community  Mirror Takes - Video  State News  Special Sections  Mirror Locator  Real Estate-Visual Tours  Jobs  TV Listings  Movies & More  Blogs  Submit Your News  PA Outdoor Times  Coupons  Mirror Moms  Things To Do


  • Scholastic Sports
  • Penn State
  • Sports Columns
  • Voice of the Fan
  • Multimedia
  • AP News & Sports
  • Running/Wellness Challenge
  • Circulation Info
  • Real Estate
  • Advertising Info
  • Customer Service
  • Contact Us
  • Online Extras
  • Affiliated Sites

Eichelberger sponsors anti-gay marriage amendment

By William Kibler, bkibler@altoonamirror.com
POSTED: May 20, 2009

HOLLIDAYSBURG -- At a courthouse rally Tuesday, State Sen. John Eichelberger Jr. announced he will introduce a bill today for a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage.

About 70 supporters attended.

Eichelberger's amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The amendment would forestall the possibility of a court ruling that could find a current law that protects traditional marriage unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union is hoping for such a ruling, Eichelberger told the group.

The proposal puts Eichelberger "on the wrong side of history," said Andy Hoover, legal director of ACLU Pennsylvania.

Same-sex marriage is becoming increasingly acceptable nationally, he said.

Eichelberger said studies have shown the traditional family -- flawed as it may be in practice -- is best for raising children.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would weaken it and lead little-by-little to other "models" like polygamy and pedophilia, he said.

There's nothing to worry about, Hoover said.

"What a gay couple does in the privacy of their home has nothing to do with straight couples," he said.

Gay couples mainly just want the same protections as straight ones in matters of inheritance and taxes, he said.

The amendment bill must pass both houses of the General Assembly by simple majority in two consecutive sessions, then pass referendum by simple majority at the next general election, according to Eichelberger aide Jason High.

A Constitutional amendment doesn't require the governor's signature.

Putting an amendment proposal to referendum will allow the people rather than judges to decide, said Eichelberger, who chose the courthouse on election day for the rally to highlight the choice between courts and ballot box.

Eichelberger said he's more confident about his proposal's chances in the Senate than in the House.

Hoover said the amendment bid isn't likely to go anywhere, as similar measures failed in spring 2006 and spring 2008.

Rally attendee Ann Sell of Hollidaysburg hopes Eichelberger succeeds.

"It's God's word," she said. "A man and a woman."

Same-sex couples can't fulfill the intended purpose of marriage by reproducing, she said.

And they create confusion for children -- not only those the couples adopt, but others who observe the relationships, she said.

Thirty-two states currently have amendments like he has proposed, Eichelberger said.

Gays and lesbians can marry legally in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa and will be able to before the end of the year in Vermont and Maine, according to the Web site Lesbian Life.

A gay marriage announcement in Sunday's Mirror didn't motivate him to propose the amendment, Eichelberger said.

Hoover said Eichelberger's proposal is a distraction from the state's serious problems with the budget, the economy and health care.

"It's much ado about nothing," he said.

Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 949-7038.

 
Share:
Facebook  MySpace  Digg  Stumble    Mixx  Fark  del.icio.us   LiveSpaces
 
Member Comments
View Comments: | 1-25 |26-36 | Post a comment
VeepGeek
05-23-09 8:54 AM
I'm neither for or against gay marriage. I couldn't possibly care less what people do in their bedrooms. This type of Republican rhetoric on social issues is exactly why so many of us have now become Independents. We want the government out of our lives. We want leadership on security and fiscal issues. We want entitlements to end. We want communities and churches to take care of social issues and stop spending our tax monies on things that families, churches and charities should be dealing with. Get to work on this horrendous budget deficit. Get to work on busting the teachers' union so we can get quality K-12 education in this state for our high taxes. Work on making Pennsylvania friendly for businesses so we can have quality jobs for our children so the don't have to go to Maryland, Virginia or farther for their livelihood. That's what we NEED! That's why I voted for you, Mr. Eichelberger. Once all those problems are solved, you are free to do "God's work".

KMadak
05-22-09 6:50 AM
Who are you to say what marriage should or shouldn't be, Jservello? Didn't realize God was walking among us. Why shouldn't these people have the same civil rights as other married couples? "God Loves us all, except F*gs, **** and Catholics" right, Servello?

Jservello
05-21-09 9:40 PM
Thank you ALtoona Mirror for sensoring our comments! Thought this was a free thinking country! Go to the PA Senate website and look for it!

Jservello
05-21-09 9:39 PM
try this link "***********pasenategop****/multimedia.htm" for John's comments on the budget!

Jservello
05-21-09 9:37 PM
Those of you who think John E is not trying to do something about the Budget and the mess that Jubileer and the rest of them voted themselves a few years ago, just go to *******nova.pasenategop****/eichelberger/2009/0509/eichelberger-050609-sb850.wmv listen and learn! John is trying to gain momentum as a relatively new Senator, and he needs people from our area to get behind him and support him not criticize what he is doing. This is just a measure to insure that marriage remains what it should be, and not be mutated into something else. I feel the more little things like this that we have taken away from us, the easier it is to start taking away bigger things, like freedom of Religion!

notyouraverageJoe
05-21-09 2:59 PM
I agree with Ridgerunner...this is all BS designed to take people's minds off the looming tax increase due to the state revenue shortfall. Any Chance Eichelberger with get off his self rightous high horse long enough to offer some leadership on fiscal issues?

HapaxLegomenon
05-21-09 12:32 PM
Whynot and Homerbeep would apparently rather mindlessly spew talking points than read or address anything that's been brought up in the thread.

"No absolute word definitions in our dictionaries reflect a profound lack of moral absolutes in today's culture."

This is ludicrously awesome, and has been added to my quote file.

Whynot
05-21-09 9:16 AM
I now pronounce you HUSBAND & WIFE. Not wife & wife or husband & husband. As SoOvrObama said Adam and Eve.. not Adam & Steve. Threesome marriage move to Utah.....

RidgeRunner
05-21-09 9:00 AM
Layoffs, home foreclosures, increased crime, a dysfunctional state budget, and Eichelberger spends his time trying to protect us from the big bad homosexuals.

This is just a meaningless distraction from the party of NO, since they don't have any solutions to the real problems facing us.

theadvocate
05-21-09 8:35 AM
This is not about marriage, it for benefits the government offers married people

homerbeep
05-21-09 4:15 AM
How does one have the right to change the very definition of a word ("marriage") just because he disagrees with it? What next? "Marriage is the union of three men, two women and six dogs"? Where does it stop? No absolute word definitions in our dictionaries reflect a profound lack of moral absolutes in today's culture.

Bill6869
05-20-09 11:46 PM
So KlausVD your for gay marriage i should have known you were one of them after reading some of your comments on here!!

notintoona
05-20-09 10:48 PM
This whole thing is so ironic. This country was founded by people (Penn, Williams, etc.) who fled the persecution of state sponsored religion. All these right wing wack jobs celebrate this fact and pound their chests about America's spirit of independence and freedom. Stuff like this is an example of state sponsored religion - the prevailing religion is given (or tries to take) the power to dictate religion to society. My hope is that some day the Church of Gaystianity is the prevailing religion and they pass legislation that exiles to Gtmo morons who want to choose who can and cannot get married.

I'm married, have a daughter, and a son on the way. Thank god for legislation like this. I was really feeling like my marriage was being threatened. If my neighbors, Pete and Tim, were to wed, I would probably have to divorce my wife. I can't imagine anything more stupid than this.

HapaxLegomenon
05-20-09 10:24 PM
JasonFMX: Churches and other places of worship are 100% free to choose not to perform or condone homosexual marriages. That's a private matter. Those of us who support gay marriage are most concerned with recognition by the secular law.

KMadak
05-20-09 10:16 PM
Republicans are all for small government, and keeping the government out of our lives... Except in the case of who you want to marry. Then they're all over it.

JasonFMX
05-20-09 10:10 PM
Well if its religious reservations folks have thats a personal issue, not for the state. So you can "want" anything you want, but you surely have to realize that just because you want something doesn't mean you have the right to actually have it happen. You could have legal homo sexual marriages, just not religious ones, if thats the case. Again, I ask, what do you care? Its like smoking, I don't smoke and I hate smoking, but I think people should smoke all they want. AS LONG AS its not in a place to effect others, like in restaurants. Thank goodness for that new ban.

cataztrophe
05-20-09 9:46 PM
I find it ironic that in a world where we see more likelihood of couples living together instead of wanting the (fill in your own blank here--monogamy, sanctity, gov't rights,etc) of marriage, here are a group fighting TO make that very committment and show the world they are one. They want it under God as well as gov't and neither religion nor gov't want them. Personally, I don't have any interest either way I guess because it hasn't affected me, but neither can I understand the almost anger(or fear) some have against it.

HapaxLegomenon
05-20-09 9:37 PM
BBTrekkies, your post is all over the map. Please try to write more clearly next time - I'm not always sure what points you're even trying to make.

Homosexuality is not morally equivalent to pedophilia, any more than heterosexuality is thus equivalent to a middle-aged man molesting a ten-year-old girl. It's a matter of consent.

The polygamy argument is more complex, but it remains that, while polygamy can indeed involve consenting adults, it also brings into play potential issues unshared by either homo- or heterosexual marriage that make it unlikely to be legalized in the foreseeable future. I am happy to elucidate these if necessary, but for now I will address the remainder of your post.

You associate homosexuality with a "loss of morals". In what substantive way is homosexuality immoral? "[Insert religion here] says it is" and "It's different and thus makes me uncomfortable" are not acceptable answers.

BBTrekkies
05-20-09 8:36 PM
Marriage is a SOCIAL CONTRACT recognized by the goverment not just a "personal or religious" contract. This means that your marital status affects every aspect of your life that deals with the government.

Homosexuals say this is their natural born preference and we should accept and respect it. Okay, should we also recognize pedofiles who were born with a sexual attraction to children? Or is it because we are talking about adults not children you are not offended or find homosexuality morally offensive? Should we not then also recognize polygamy since it is between consenting adults regardless of the social consenquences?

Many will be offended that I openly state I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I am equally offended by such open acceptance of the loss of morals in this country.

HapaxLegomenon
05-20-09 7:46 PM
Textcop:

1. Modern sex segregation in sports (-especially- tackle football) overwhelmingly has to do with physiology, not tradition. It is utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand.

2. We can start questioning insurance coverage of non-married partners once gay couples have the same opportunities to enter into marriage contracts.

Are you -really- assuming that people covered under a partner's insurance policy are jobless layabouts? What if their job doesn't include benefits? What if they're homemakers raising children?

textcop
05-20-09 6:34 PM
(continued) The only problem here is that we will all pay for it. More and more "domestic partners" or "significante others" will stay home now and not work because we are going to cover them on medical and insurance. Less tax money coming in and more going out. It seems a conflict of interest if we are going to put into the Pa Constitution that "marriage will be defined between a man and a women" if we are still going to use tax dollars to cover the "domestic partner" with medical benefits and insurance if they have a "significante other" who works for the state.

textcop
05-20-09 6:27 PM
I think we can equate the "marriage" part of it with the same traditions that pro football does not want women on the field. Its traditional, no matter what religious beliefs people have. Marriage has always been a tradition between men and women. Find another term for it? Male-Union or Female-Union and it would probably be acceptable. It doesn't really matter because employers are already covering "significante others" on the insurance policies and medical coverage. I would like to see Marriage stay a traditional thing between a man & women, just like I don't want to see women on the field in Pro football. That's just my opinion. I'm not anti gay. I have my own religion that I follow and I do not impose it on other people. Kudo's John for standing up for what you believe even though your employer "the state" is already allowing the coverage of "domestic partner" in it's benefits if the employees have proof of a "union". The only

santeejohnny
05-20-09 6:11 PM
Pascal, excellent point. I should have thought of that I hate to admit it, but lambs made a good point. What if three people want to get married, shouldn't the govt stay out of our lives? Except... aren't there laws against adultery? Should these laws (adultery) be unconstitutional

KlausVR
05-20-09 5:47 PM
Jim, red neck has been censored on this site for quite a while.

Pascal
05-20-09 5:11 PM
History repeats...similar rallies were held all over the place half a century ago to stop interracial marriage...it was going to be the end of civilization etc...

You must first login before you can comment.
Existing Member Login
Not a Member?
Create a Member Account  
*Your email address:
*Password:
    Forgot Password?
  Remember my email address.
 
Local News  Obituaries  Business  Crime Center  Food Inspections  Editorials  Sports  Life  Community  Mirror Takes - Video  State News  Special Sections  Mirror Locator  Real Estate-Visual Tours  Jobs  TV Listings  Movies & More  Blogs  Submit Your News  PA Outdoor Times  Coupons  Mirror Moms  Things To Do