Posted on 06/22/2006 3:30:19 PM PDT by DBeers
HARRISBURG — The Senate and House are divided on language to ban gay marriage in the state Constitution, and the long-term political ramifications of their efforts could be huge. If the chambers agree on a plan soon, it could sway the election for the next U.S. president, analysts and critics say.
The Senate approved the latest version of a proposed constitutional amendment yesterday by a vote of 38-12, with Lebanon County Sen. David J. Brightbill voting for it. It kicks back to the House, which approved a different version two weeks ago.
The chambers disagree on whether the Constitution should ban civil unions, which are legal arrangements that allow same-sex partners in some states to share benefits as a couple. The House version approved two weeks ago would ban civil unions, but the Senate version would not.
The next presidential race could be affected because any plan to amend the Constitution must be ratified in a voter referendum, and timely approval in the Legislature would put it on course for a referendum in 2007 or 2008. A November 2008 referendum would likely draw throngs of conservative voters to the polls, and the Republican presidential nominee would surely benefit.
Because Pennsylvania has 21 coveted electoral votes — enough to swing a close election — the state’s gay-marriage debate has the potential to blow into a major national story, Harrisburg-based pollster Mike Young said.
“If I was betting, I would bet that’s what they do,” Young said of the potential for a referendum in November 2008.
The effect of a 2004 gay-union referendum in Ohio has been debated in political circles since the state sealed George W. Bush’s re-election. Ohioans approved a constitutional amendment expanding its gay-marriage ban, and Bush carried the state’s 20 electoral votes.
Republicans are eager to put Pennsylvania in the red column after Al Gore and John Kerry carried the state in 2000 and 2004, but GOP supporters of the constitutional amendment here say they are not trying to influence the presidential race.
Erik Arneson, Brightbill’s chief of staff, said there is no coordinated plan to get the measure on the 2008 presidential ballot, and supporters want it ratified by the voters sooner. He said a 2007 referendum is more likely.
Some Democrats are already worried about it.
“Absolutely, that’s in the back of all our minds,” said Rep. Stephen Stetler, D-York, an outspoken critic of the gay-marriage ban.
Though a 1996 state law already bans same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania, supporters of a constitutional amendment say it would help ensure the courts don’t overturn the ban.
By passing a new version yesterday, the Senate puts pressure on the House to act quickly if a referendum is to stay on course.
To win initial approval this year, the chambers must agree before their summer recess because of a legal-advertising requirement. Even though the referendum would not go on the ballot this year, initial passage must be advertised 90 days before the November general election.
A constitutional amendment must be approved in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature before voters get a chance to ratify it. If the plan wins initial approval this summer, both chambers would have to approve it again in the 2007-08 session, and the timing of the referendum would depend on when lawmakers take up the measure next session.
Interesting dilemma. The politicians (at least the Republicans) think it would be good to have it on the ballot at the 2008 election, and the people want it passed sooner.
MA unfortunately has the same deal, needing it approved 2 or 3 times in the legislature for it to go on the ballot. But in MA, the activist took the petition to court saying it was unconstitutional, (yeah right). They will try and even do anything to keep it off the ballot. Hopefully they won't be able to, in MA or PA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.