PA Repukes try to create the FMA wedge even though law exists already

[LynneSin]

As you know, repukes would love to see Gov. Ed Rendell defeated and he has been on record about vetoing any laws created that would discriminate in the state including things like the FMA act (although for this law he has no say in it). HOWEVER, there is already a law create that basically is the same thing as they are voting on now - Pennsylvania's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. So really, this bill is being debating (and nothing being done about Tax Reform and plenty of other import reform that Rendell is trying to push) just so they can vote on legislation that already exists in the books


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14756518.htm

Pa. moves to ban same-sex marriage

The state House approved, by 136-61, a constitutional
amendment that would shore up an existing law.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG - In the first major legislative action since the primary election shook up its ranks, the state House yesterday did not take up property-tax relief or lobbying disclosure - issues voters have complained most vocally about - but instead approved a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

By a vote of 136-61, which included significant Democratic support, the House approved a proposal that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The bill will likely be voted on in the Senate by the end of the month, a Senate Republican spokesman said.

A constitutional amendment requires passage in the legislature in two consecutive sessions and then approval by voters in a statewide referendum, which could come as early as spring 2007.


<<<<<snip>>>>>>


Gov. Rendell has no role in the amendment process and took no position on the bill approved yesterday, his spokeswoman Kate Philips said.

"The governor believes that couples in long-term committed relationships who are gay should have the same rights as heterosexuals do in marriage," she said.

[nickinSTL]

1. Missouri did the same thing...

passed a constitutional amendment despite there already being a law banning gay marriage.

It was a ploy to whip up the rw base...fortunately, the Repubs didn't manage to get it on the November ballot to boost their numbers then, but still...

[Jim__]

2. What can the dems do about it?

Obviously the repukes have a "winning" tactic in raising issues, often meaningless issues - as in this case where the law already exists, or the FMA where there is no realistic chance of passing it -that can divide the dem vote.

This tactic is costly to the taxpayer, wasting government time; and yet it seems to be a winning tactic. Why can't the dems turn this around? Dems should be able to club the repukes with this type of silliness. Why can't they? Isn't there some way to use this against repukes?

[LynneSin]

3. What dems in PA can do - simple

Point out that there was a Tax Reform bill that was passed by the senate overwhelmingly but tabled by the house because they didn't want to give any ammunition to Gov Rendell in the fall election. There were other critical issues that were tabled in order to vote on this.

This is a campaign issue NOT because it caters to homophobes in Pennsylvania BUT because it shows just how little republicans care about real issues to debate & vote on an issue that already has a law in the books.

PLUS - this so-called 'ban' does not play well in the urban areas of Pennsylvania especially in Philadelphia where it's highly unpopular. Lynn Swann cannot win Pennsylvania unless he stays close to Rendll in the Philadelphia vote. In 2002, Rendell won Philly and the 4 surround counties by a 500k vote difference and lagged behind the republican opponent in the rest of the counties by 300k votes. So even though more counties went red, more people went blue.