This Week at the State Capitol

This is a new feature I'm hoping to start doing on a regular basis, giving you a preview of what's going on at the state capitol. Although I'm doing this one on Monday, look for it late in the week before a session week, though I don't want to interfere with Chris's awesome Friday First Amendment Roundup.

This week promises to provide hours and hours of non-stop entertainment.

Talk Talk:
Monday, February 14, 12:30pm, Main Rotunda
Marriage Equality Press Conference
Marriage equality legislation, delivered just in time for Valentine's Day! Senator Daylin Leach has introduced Senate Bill 461 to allow lesbian and gay couples to join the institution of marriage and all of the benefits that go with it. Rep. Mark Cohen will introduce a civil unions on the House side. Polling indicates that either marriage or civil unions for same sex couples is supported by 65% of Pennsylvanians.

Tuesday, February 15, 9am, Hearing Room 1, North Office Building
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on cost-cutting measures in criminal justice
Despite the legislation passed last session, there is still plenty of work to be done. Pennsylvania still has a deep mandatory minimum sentencing scheme that needs rolled back, and programs that should help alleviate the prison population, like State Intermediate Punishment and the Recidivism Risk Reduction Initiative, have restrictions that make those programs ineffective. Meanwhile, the state is spending $800 million to build four new state prisons.

Wednesday, February 16, 9:15am, Hearing Room 1, North Office Building
Senate Education Committee hearing on Senate Bill 1
Welcome to the main event! SB 1 provides state-funded vouchers to low-income students to use at private, parochial, or other public schools. SB 1 violates three provisions of the state constitution that bar funding to sectarian schools, sectarian institutions, and schools that are not under the absolute control of the commonwealth. SB 1 also gives state funds to private and religious schools that can and do discriminate against kids for a variety of reasons, including disability, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and an inability to speak English. Public schools, meanwhile, take everyone.

I don't have our testimony posted on our website yet but will have it up at our legislative page by Wednesday. Meanwhile, you can learn more about vouchers from our friends at the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and at the Pennsylvania State Education Association.

I often tweet when I'm at these events, so be sure to follow us @aclupa.

Rock the Vote?
Three bills on which the ACLU of PA has a position are currently on the Senate calendar. These bills could get a vote any day or might go to the Senate Appropriations Committee for fiscal considerations:

• Senate Bill 3: We oppose. Bans insurance companies from offering abortion coverage within the insurance exchanges created by the federal government's healthcare reform. A woman who spends her own money on coverage couldn't get it within the exchange if SB 3 becomes law. We expect this bill will detour to the Senate Appropriations Committee before getting a vote sometime in the future. The Patriot News and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette have both editorialized on this bill.
  
• Senate Bill 9: We oppose. Requires applicants for public aid to show government-issued ID or be denied. Supporters claim they're stopping people without papers from fraudulently getting aid but show no evidence that that's a problem. Meanwhile, academic analysis suggests as much as 11 percent of US citizens do not have government-issued ID. This bill should go to approps since multiple state agencies estimated in 2008 that SB 9 would cost the commonwealth $19 million to implement.
• Senate Bill 42: We oppose. Shrinks the time frame in which persons who have committed sex offenses have to report certain changes, e.g. change in employment, to the state from 10 days to 2 days. It also treats a violation like a felony crime, not like a parole violation. Seriously, aren't we just setting these people up for failure?

Info about SB 3 and SB 9 is available at our legislative webpage.

Rock the committee vote
Since the war on drugs has been such a roaring success (/snark), the House Judiciary Committee will vote on three bills to expand the drug laws to add new substances- Spice et al, aka "synthetic marijuana"; Salvia Divinorum; and some chemical compounds I cannot pronounce.

So PA is building four new prisons at a cost of $800 million due to a bursting inmate population that has been caused in large part to the extreme sentencing laws for drug offenses we've implemented. And now we're going to add more substances to the list of what's illegal......If you continuously bang your head against a wall, at some point don't you realize that it won't make your headache go away?

Welcome to my world.....

Philadelphia: LGBT Town Hall and Happy Hour TONIGHT, 6:30 PM

If you are in or around Philadelphia and you're a member of the LGBT community (and that includes straight supporters!) we invite you to join us tonight at 6:30 PM at the William Way Community Center, 1315 Spruce Street in Philadelphia.


Join the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Equality Pennsylvania and the Human Rights Campaign to discuss the challenges facing Pennsylvania's LGBT population now and in the future.  The Town Hall will take place from 6:30 until 8:30, when we'll move to Tabu Lounge and Sports Bar , 200 South 12th Street, where we can drown our sorrows in drink specials.  


This meeting is one of many that the ACLU, Equality PA and the HRC will be hosting around the state.  If you can't make it to Philadelphia, we hope you will join us when we gather in your region!


Photo by Flickr user terry6082 Books, available under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License.

Friday First Amendment Roundup: Interrupting the Constitution, Shielding Against Whistleblowers, and the Soledad Cross

Big week for civil liberties this week, with new lawmakers (and new House majorities) both in Harrisburg and in Washington.  PA State Representative Darryl Metcalfe is starting hard out of the gate, with an anti-baby bill and an anti-gay Constitutional amendment in his eager little hands.  As we always remind you, though, challenges to civil liberties come in all shapes and sizes.  Here's a quick review of what you may have missed this week.

• First and most exciting: in case you missed it, it's legal again to swear in Pennsylvania.  Don't say we never did anything for you.
• The House of Representatives opened their new session with its first-ever reading of the U.S. Constitution, which opened the opportunity for a birther to give us the first-ever heckling of the House as they read the Constitution.
• Not to be outdone, protesters several times interrupted the press conference by Darryl Metcalfe and his colleagues announcing their multi-state anti-baby bill.  Note the woman 46 seconds into the video urging the protesters to "respect [the speaker's] freedom of speech and sit down." 
• The ACLU welcomed the new congress with polite urging to uphold and protect the rights and values enshrined in the Constitution.
• It's hard to say whether House members had a chance to read their nice letter from the ACLU before proposing the "Shield Bill," which would make it a crime to knowingly and willfully disseminate any information "concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States."  Aimed at whistle-blowers and organizations like WikiLeaks, there are also very serious questions about its potential limitations on journalists.  As an aside, the last time Congress passed a "Shield Bill," it was intended to shield journalists against retaliatory prosecution.  
• A Federal judge in Rhode Island ruled against the Rhode Island ACLU's argument that the city of Narragansett's "Orange Sticker Law," aimed at curtailing loud college parties by quite literally labeling houses police consider a problem, is unconstitutional.
• The Ninth Circuit, meanwhile, ruled that the "Soledad Cross" is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion, and sent the case back to a federal court to determine whether the cross may be modified to pass muster, or must be removed altogether.

Why James Carville was wrong about Pennsylvania

Every time I hear the quote it makes my skin crawl: Pennsylvania is Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle. Political consultant James Carville said some version of this quip while working on Bob Casey, Sr.'s gubernatorial campaign in 1986. Today I hear it from advocates, including my own colleagues, on a nearly constant basis. It's usually said by people from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and is meant as a slam on those of us from the rest of the state.

There are all kinds of threads to pull apart with this quote, starting with the idea that being "Alabama" is a slam. (Carville claims that he only meant that in central and northern PA, people are conservative and churchgoers.)

The meaning that has been projected onto this line, that Pennsylvanians not from Philly or Pittsburgh are bumpkins who take positions on issues based on visceral reactions and fears, is wrong. And it's time for civil rights advocates and civil libertarians to retire the quote.

Carville was not talking about civil liberties, but let's consider the quote from a civil liberties perspective and why it doesn't work.

Philly ain't that great. The city of Philadelphia is responsible for many civil liberties problems. Example A just occurred a few weeks ago when a 17-year-old boy was hit with a Taser by a Philadelphia police officer after the boy ran onto the field at a Phillies game. The kid did something dumb, but he was not a physical threat to anyone. Philadelphia PD is notorious for using excessive force, and this was just another example.

The city has also cost the taxpayers of this commonwealth millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of dollars because the former, long-time district attorney, Lynne Abraham, insisted on pursuing the death penalty in nearly every homicide case she presided over during her 18-year reign as DA. As a result, a majority of people on death row are from Philadelphia.

The people of Philadelphia elected and re-elected Abraham four times.

Philadelphia is also now participating in the federal government's Secure Communities program. You know, we have to "secure our communities" from those robbing, raping, thieving illegal aliens. The city police department's arrest database is linked to ICE. It sounds good in theory, but there is a horrendous track record of racial profiling and harassment when local law enforcement and ICE work together.

Civil liberties belong to all of us. Our national executive director, Anthony Romero, once said that civil liberties don't belong to only the liberal wing of the Democratic Party or the conservative wing of the Republican Party. We have numerous examples of state legislators from areas of the state outside of Philly and Pittsburgh standing up for our rights. Four of the eight senators who voted to table the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in March were from areas other than the southeast and southwest. Our greatest champions in opposition to the commonwealth implementing Real ID have been from the "Alabama" area of the state. The list goes on.

The quote disempowers people. When my fellow advocates throw this quip around, the message to those of us in the middle of the state is, Give up. Before becoming legislative director, I was ACLU-PA's community organizer for central PA. It was clear that supporters of the ACLU's mission in this area of the state felt frustrated and had no faith in their fellow citizens. By quoting Carville, we advocates add to that disempowerment.

Carville was wrong about Pennsylvania. We are a striped state where no political ideology dominates. As civil libertarians, we must be willing to talk about our issues wherever the people are, and talk with them in their language, and not simply huddle in the big cities.

(I also recommend this piece from Politico, which quotes numerous PA political observers on the inaccuracy of the line.)

Andy in Harrisburg

Reflections on Tuesday's marriage amendment vote

It's taken me two days to find some time to blog and to reflect on Tuesday's vote on Senate Bill 707, amending the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. It was hard to miss it, but in case you did, the committee voted 8-6 to table SB 707. This is the third time in four years that this hurtful initiative has failed, and it's the first time that the bill failed to get out of committee.

In 2008, this same committee passed, 10-4, a broader marriage amendment that also would have wiped out other forms of relationship recognition. There's only been one personnel change since 2008, so three members who voted "yes" in 08 voted to table this time around.

Senator Daylin Leach has called the vote "historic." He's right. While this wasn't an up or down vote on the merits of the bill, it was the next best thing. The eight senators who voted to table essentially said, "We want this to go away."

Senator Leach has also said that the eight senators who voted to table had "courage." I prefer to not say that this was a courageous vote. Voting to stop a bill that would inscribe discrimination into our constitution isn't courageous. Or at least it shouldn't be. The Pennsylvania Constitution has historically been used to preserve and expand rights and limit the power of the government.

But I get why Leach said that they had courage. For politicians, it's not easy to switch your vote after you've previously voted another way. And the heat that the anti-gay crowd brings, especially the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, can be withering. After the non-discrimination bill, HB 300, came out of committee in the House, I swear some reps were cowering in the corner of their offices, crying for their mommy. (Ok, I didn't actually see any reps cowering in the corner, crying for their mommy, but you get the point.)

We can't say that the marriage amendment is going away forever. In an earlier post, I referred to it as a zombie freak show that never seems to die. I fully expect that the anti-gay crowd will be back for more next year or in 2012.

But it's hard to imagine anyone taking them seriously after Tuesday's vote. Their efforts are lying in ashes in Room 8e-b of the East Wing of the Pennsylvania Capitol.

Andy in Harrisburg

Say "Thank you!" Our friends at Equality Pennsylvania have posted a thank you message that you can send to the eight senators who voted to table SB 707. These eight senators need to hear how much we appreciate their vote.

"Marriage Amendment" dies in committee

Breaking: Just got word from Andy that SB 707, the so-called "Marriage Amendment," has been tabled by the Senate Judiciary Committee in an 8-6 vote. This effectively kills the bill.

We'll post more on this soon. In the meantime, a plug: to stay as current as possible on our issues, follow the ACLU of Pennsylvania on Twitter.

Chris in Philly

PA Senate ignores big problems, goes after gay people

A friend who is a senator likes to joke that the Pennsylvania Senate is where good ideas go to die. Apparently, it's also the place where some bad ideas never die.

Like a zombie freak show yet again rising from its grave, the attempt to amend the Pennsylvania constitution to ban same sex marriage is back. Senate Bill 707 would embed discrimination into our constitution.

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on SB 707, an idea that has already died twice, in 2006 and 2008.

Please contact your senator and ask him or her to vote "no" on SB 707. Don't know who your senator is? Use our "find your legislator" tool.

It pains me to say this, but we almost have to encourage you to contact every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That's what our opponents do, and they are effective when they do it.

Since we've beaten this twice before, you probably know the talking points, but here are some ideas:

• The constitution has historically been used to protect and expand rights, not restrict them.
• A poll conducted last year by The Morning Call found that only 44 percent of Pennsylvanians want this constitutional amendment. 45 percent are opposed to the idea.
• Pennsylvania is facing a lot of major issues, including a pension crisis, a drop in tax revenues, and prison overcrowding. There couldn't be a worse time to take on this divisive, distracting legislation.

Here's a full page of talking points (pdf) that you may find helpful.

This committee vote is going to be very close. If this bill goes down in committee, it could be the end of the efforts to amend our constitution to ban same sex marriage. Let's do this!

Andy in Harrisburg

Last week was a good week at the state capitol

The joke around here is that civil liberties are safest when the state legislature is on vacation. So please look at that headline again and enjoy it. Here's what we had cooking last week.

Shackling pregnant inmates in childbirth: Senate Bill 1074 would ban the practice of restraining pregnant inmates during childbirth in Pennsylvania's state prisons and county jails. The ACLU of PA supports the bill.

It's hard to believe that this is even an issue. As one Senate staffer said to me, "I can't believe we have to legislate commonsense." Sadly, the ACLU of PA and our allies have heard anecdotes of this happening. There's a word for people who think that a woman in labor is a flight risk- men.

Last Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted the bill to the floor of the Senate.

Philadelphia Weekly and even the BBC have covered the issue. On Sunday, The Patriot News of Harrisburg editorialized in favor of SB 1074:

Legislators should pass this measure so no more babies are born to mothers shackled while in labor, like some scene from medieval times. Pennsylvania can do better.

The powers of the PA Game Commission: Under current law, officers of the Pennsylvania Game Commission can stop and search a person "at any time." That's actually how the law is written. House Bill 181 would require commission officers to follow the same standards as police officers- reasonable suspicion for a stop and probable cause for a search. The ACLU of PA supports the bill.

HB 181 passed out of the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee on a unanimous vote, and the bill is in its legislative home stretch. Barring a Senate floor amendment, it now only needs to be passed by the Senate before going to the governor. At this point, the governor's position on the bill is not known, so we will be working hard to advocate with him in favor of HB 181.

Sexting: The House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to consider House Bill 2189, which deals with teenagers sending semi-nude, nude, and sexually provocative pictures of themselves and others to romantic partners and friends. You may be aware that we have a pending case involving an overzealous DA who thought girls in their underwear was child pornography.

HB 2189 is so broad that constitutionally-protected activity would suddenly become a crime. A teenage couple consensually sending nude pictures to each other would be criminal, but this activity is protected by the First Amendment. If this bill becomes law as it is currently written, it will most certainly be challenged. The Times Tribune and WITF-FM have covered some of our concerns with the bill.

But a storm is gathering. And I use that phrase on purpose. Last week Senator John Eichelberger announced his plan to introduce a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. The commonwealth has a financial crisis, a pension crisis, and a corrections crisis, but Senator Eichelberger thinks the best thing he can do with his time is worry about the gay couple next door.

We beat this in 06. We beat it in 08. Let's go for the three-peat in 10.

Also, the sexting bill is back on the House Judiciary Committee's agenda for February 9, and none of our concerns have been addressed. We're putting on the full court press with assistance from the Juvenile Law Center.

I don't want to end on a downer, so here's some good news. We are cautiously optimistic that the shackling bill, SB 1074, and the Game Commission bill, HB 181, will both get positive votes before the full Senate in March or April.

And beware of big gay rainstorms in your future.....

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

Andy in Harrisburg

Gay Marriage: It's Not Just a "Liberal" Position Anymore

These two opinion pieces - the first from Robert Levy, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, and the second by Ted Olson, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations - argue in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

"Out in the Silence" Airing Tonight on WPSU

Haven't seen Out in the Silence yet? If you live in the blue areas shown below, you have another chance tonight!



WPSU will be airing the film tonight at 9:00PM.

Go to http://wpsu.org/outinthesilence/airdates_index for announcements of future airdates on public television.

Out in the Silence

This month the ACLU of PA has been working to bring "Out in the Silence," a film by Joe Wilson and Dean Hamer, to communities across the state. The film has won several awards (including the Audience Award at the Hardacre Film and Cinema Festival in the small town of Tipton, Iowa, and an Alternative Spirit Award at the Rhode Island International Film Festival), but having seen the film five times over the course of three weeks, I do not need to rely on these recommendations - I am somewhat of an expert myself.

By turns sad, funny, and infuriating, the film follows the lives of several current and former residents of Oil City, PA, a small Rust Belt town in western Pennsylvania. After Joe Wilson, a native of the town, decides to place an announcement of his wedding to Dean Hamer in his hometown newspaper, a flurry of nasty responses ensue. One day, however, he receives a letter from a mother in Oil City whose gay teen has been bullied so badly that she has had to withdraw him from school. Knowing of no other place to turn, she has resorted to writing to a man she just happened to see in the newspaper. Joe and Dean return to Oil City to document what is happening with this mother and her son (see page 16 of the ACLU's 2007 Legal Docket for information about the lawsuit they filed against the school district), as well as Joe's former neighbor and her same-sex partner who are working to open a business in town.

Among the films most notable points are the pain experienced by the teenage C.J., the conversations between filmmaker Joe and an evangelical pastor who wrote a letter to the newspaper condemning his wedding announcement, and the father of a teen in a neighboring community who talks about his transformation from someone who would physically assault gay people just for existing to his support of his son today.

If you have not had the opportunity to see "Out in the Silence" at our screenings in Lewisburg, York, Lititz, Harrisburg, or Titusville, you can watch it on WITF November 1, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. Upcoming showings are also planned for Pittsburgh, Erie, Sharon, Oil City, and Stroudsburg.

Want to bring "Out in the Silence" to your town? Contact the producers and your regional ACLU office for help!

Becca in Harrisburg

Animal Planet

Human usually want to distance themselves from nature and distinguish themselves from animals. Interestingly enough, when it comes to LGBT civil rights, opponents are suddenly in a rush to get back to our roots in the jungles and on the savannahs, arguing that we should not grant equal rights to gays and lesbians because homosexuality is “unnatural” or “against nature.” (Ironically, many of these same people will argue that we have no roots in nature when it comes to the issue of teaching evolution in public school science classes…but that’s another story.)

For example, the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property – a nonprofit organization with its national headquarters in Spring Grove, PA (a mere 12 miles from the site of the aforementioned “other story”) – lists as number 2 in its “Top Ten Reasons Why Homosexual Marriage Is Harmful and Must Be Opposed” that “It Violates Natural Law.” “Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings,” their flyer states. “It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law…A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex ‘marriage’ opposes nature.”

Wrong again.

The Associated Press recently reported on a male-male penguin couple that are raising an abandoned chick as their own at the Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany. This pair is one of three male-male pairs of penguins at that zoo alone that have attempted to mate with each other.

This is not the first story I have heard about homosexual behavior in animals, so I clicked on a few of the related stories to find out more. Turns out that in 2006, the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, opened a year-long exhibit entitled “Against Nature?” that focused on this subject.

According to an exhibition statement, “Homosexuality is a common and widespread phenomenon in the animal world. Not only short-lived sexual relationships, but even long lasting partnerships; partnerships that may last a lifetime.” Homosexual behavior has been observed in 1,500 species and is well document in 500 of these, including giraffes, various types of apes, right whales, flamingos, black swans, walruses, dolphins, and many others. The exhibit said that although this phenomenon has often been dismissed because it does not lead directly to species continuation, homosexuality may be evolutionarily adaptive in some instances – for example, ape species that use homosexual contact to form vital bonds within the tribe that are necessary if they are later to find a reproductive partner, or flamingo pairs that are able to defend a much larger territory with two adult males than a male-female pair could, making more resources available to the chicks they are raising and allowing them to support a larger number of young.

So why haven’t most people ever heard of this? Apparently researchers are reluctant to engage in focused study or publicize research on this topic because of the negative reactions they know will be forthcoming from anti-gay groups. Linda Wolfe, chair of the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University, told LifeScience that she has even been offered data by other researchers who didn’t want to publish it under their own names.

Of course, human beings have civil rights that do not apply to the animal kingdom (how can you have freedom of speech if you do not have a spoken language?), and the LGBT community is every bit as entitled to them as the rest of us…but if you insist on bringing up the animal kingdom, well, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Becca in Harrisburg

Sex with Dogs and Other Important Problems Your Tax Dollars Are Being Used to Fight

Last week, as the Vermont and Maine legislatures’ and the Iowa Supreme Court’s progress toward equality under the law for all people was in the news, Pennsylvania State Senator John Eichelberger decided to once again dredge up that tired old refrain and introduce a bill to amend the Pennsylvania constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman – a measure that has already been attempted twice (in 2006 and 2008) and failed both times.

Eichelberger told the Altoona Mirror that he introduced this bill, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is already illegal in Pennsylvania, to prevent state courts from ever ruling unconstitutional the denial of the civil and legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. And why does Eichelberger imagine gay marriage to be so dangerous that Pennsylvanians need multiple layers of defense against it? “Legalizing same-sex marriage would weaken it and lead little-by-little to other ‘models’ like polygamy and pedophilia,” he told the paper.

Hearing this, one can’t help but hearken back to the infamous man-on-dog argument, made by former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. In a 2003 interview with Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan, Santorum opined that if antiquated sodomy laws typically used to punish homosexuals (though it would be difficult to claim with a straight face that many – perhaps even most – heterosexuals are not engaging in acts that meet the definition of “sodomy” too) were repealed, “man-on-dog” sex would ensue.

Jordan, understandably startled by this segue, was a bit taken aback. “I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to be talking about ‘man-on-dog’ with a United States senator,” she said. “It’s sort of freaking me out.”

The man-on-dog theory has also been promoted by Santorum associate Hadley Arkes, who has warned that gay marriage could lead to “cross-species involvements” and who asked in a 2003 National Review column disagreeing with the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, “If people practice sadomasochistic sex or bestiality, if they have sex with animals in forms familiar and novel, would Kennedy truly contend that the rest of us are obliged to respect virtually everything that is done?”

Putting aside questions of what is wrong with these men that they go around thinking about man-on-dog sex (and apparently dreaming up “novel” ways of having such sex), the argument that allowing gay and lesbian couples to receive equal treatment under state and federal law will lead to people having sex with their family pets is just silly. Removing gendered language from marriage statutes is not a slippery slope. Americans in states that permit gay marriage, where they were previously permitted to marry one consenting woman/man who was capable of making a legal contract, may now marry one consenting adult who is capable of making legal contract. Marrying children, pets, inanimate objects, or multiple people or things is a far cry from allowing adults a free choice with respect to who will be their marital partner. Marriage remains a legal – and, in some cases, religious – partnership between two adults who share responsibilities and provide for their mutual support cooperatively.

Santorum, Arkes, Eichelberger, and others who subscribe to their theories seem to be operating under the assumption that a gay or lesbian person is not truly homosexual, but rather is a heterosexual with no sexual impulse control at all – a person who will attempt to have sex with anyone or anything that has the misfortune to cross his or her path. That this claim is not supported by any factual evidence does not seem to bother them. For example, copious research has disproven the idea that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, yet Eichelberger is still citing pedophilia as a concern addressed by his bill.

Pennsylvania has much more important issues for our legislators to be spending their time on than man-on-dog sex. The economy, health care, education, environmental degradation, violence…the list goes on and on. Let’s concentrate on the real problems, rather than inventing wild and unfounded threats to our state and its people.

Becca in Harrisburg

See Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial here

A Step in the Right Direction

Those who think Central Pennsylvania is a lost cause got a surprise last night when the Harrisburg City Council unanimously approved legislation creating a Life Partnership Registry. While far from a perfect solution to the problem of discrimination against the LGBT population, this marks a step forward in the struggle for equality.

The new Life Partnership Registry is open to couples who, like married couples, are 18 years of age or older, competent to contract, and freely declare that they are “solely and mutually committed to each other.” They also must share common obligations, as evidenced by common ownership of property, joint bank accounts, designation of each other as the beneficiary of life insurance policies and retirement benefits, or other factors.

The partners must sign a declaration, which includes a statement “that the persons are in a relationship of mutual support and caring, and are responsible for each other’s welfare. For these purposes, ‘mutual support’ means that they contribute mutually to each other’s maintenance and financial support.”

In his book Gay Marriage: Why It’s Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, Jonathan Rauch argues that this – mutual support and caring and responsibility for each other’s welfare – is the primary purpose of marriage and the reason why society has an interest in seeing its citizens, gay or straight, in married relationships. The legal and social ties that marriage establishes, he says, stabilize these relationships and contribute to their longevity. Marriages then serve as a vehicle for society to provide emotional support, financial assistance, care during health crises, and other benefits that the state or another entity would otherwise have to provide to the married partners.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also endorsed gay marriage because it allows two parents to mutually support and care for a child. In many states, same-sex parents are not allowed to co-adopt a child, and only one can be the legal parent. The non-biological/non-adoptive parent may be unable to access rights on behalf of the child, including health insurance, survivor benefits, consent for medical care, or visitation rights should the relationship end or the legal parent die.

Returning to reality as it stands at the present, Harrisburg’s Life Partnership Registry is far from being gay marriage. It does, however, recognize the importance of these relationships for promoting “the public health, safety, welfare, and prosperity of its citizens and generally [improving] the overall quality of life,” and confers those rights over which the city has authority. Specifically:

- health care facilities operating within the city must allow registered Life Partners the same rights and visitation privileges granted to married spouses
- for the purpose of leases, rental agreements, and real estate contracts within the city, the definition of the term “spouse” will also include registered Life Partners
- the City of Harrisburg will be required to provide health care benefits equal to those for spouses to Life Partners of its employees
- private employers in the city, as well as the City of Harrisburg, will be required to provide bereavement leave to Life Partners if that leave is offered to married spouses
- all facilities owned, leased, and operated by the city must offer Life Partners the same rights and privileges given married spouses related to the use and access of these facilities
- the City Clerk must comply with any requests from private employers who wish to use the Life Partnership Registry as the basis for providing partner benefits to its employees

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Today Harrisburg took a step toward fulfilling that promise to its LGBT citizens. We look forward to the time when gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals will truly enjoy equality under the law.

Becca in Harrisburg

Goin' to California with an achin' in my heart

As a straight ally who works for the ACLU, I try to keep in touch with what's going on in the LGBT community. I regularly tune in to OutQ, Sirius Satellite Radio's 24-7 gay channel, and of course, my gay friends give me good perspective.

The reality of what happened last week in California on Prop 8 set in for me over the last few days. Until the final results came in on Thursday, I held out hope that discrimination would be rejected. On my ride home from work on Friday, I tuned in Michelangelo Signorile, and the outrage from his listeners was clear. And it was righteous.

Other anti-LGBT measures passed in Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas, but California clearly touches a nerve. We expect California to be a leader in civil rights. The Cali Supreme Court overturned the state ban on interracial marriage 20 years before the US Supreme Court did it.

Based on the first week's reaction, though, it appears that this could be a galvanizing moment. Protests are popping up throughout California and in other states, and a nationwide action is planned for Saturday. There's even chatter of a march on Washington.

Matt Coles of our LGBT & AIDS Project puts things in perspective, though, giving us all an opportunity to take a deep breath:

Even in famously liberal San Francisco, we had to go through the process of trying to pass a simple domestic partnership law five times, and we lost twice. If you run up an unbroken string of victories in any battle for civil rights, that simply means you waited too long to get to work. Change that matters is never smooth or easy.

Meanwhile, the ACLU has sued, with others, saying that the initiative was passed improperly.

Finally, I found Keith Olbermann's "special comment" last night quite moving. I know his special comment's have fired me up in the past, but I can't recall one nearly moving me to tears. This one did.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Andy in Harrisburg

Marriage on the line in California

This message from ACLU executive director Anthony Romero was in my inbox this morning. It's long but well worth a read.

Dear ACLU Supporter,

I'm angry and heartsick about what may happen in California on November 4th.

In the most personal way possible, I'm writing to ask you for a favor: help us ensure that gay couples all across California keep their fundamental right to marriage -- the basic right to be treated just like anybody else.

I hope you will forgive the indulgence when I speak from the heart and tell you my personal story.

You see, I grew up in a loving and supportive household, where my family believed I could be anything I chose -- anything except being an openly gay man. Neither of my parents finished high school, and yet, they believed I could accomplish all I set out to do as I went off to Princeton University and Stanford Law School.

They got me through the toughest of times, scrimped and saved, and always believed that failure wasn't in the cards for me. They had more faith in me than I often had in myself. Whenever my parents visited me at Princeton, my Dad would slip a $20 bill in my pocket when my Mom wasn't looking. I never had the courage to tell him that the $20 wouldn't go very far towards my bills, books and tuition. But, it was his support and belief in me that sustained me more than the tens of thousands of dollars I received in scholarships.

When I finished college, they were hugely proud of my -- and their -- accomplishments. That was until I told them I was gay and wanted to live life as an openly gay man.

Though I always knew I was gay, I didn't come out to them for many years, as I was afraid of losing the love and support that had allowed me to succeed against all odds. When I did tell them, they cried and even shouted. I ended up leaving their home that night to spend a sleepless night on a friend's sofa. We were all heartbroken.

When my Mom and I spoke later, my Mom said, "But, Antonio (that's the name she uses with me), hasn't your life been hard enough? People will hurt you and hate you because of this." She, of course, was right -- as gay and lesbian people didn't only suffer discrimination from working class, Puerto Rican Catholics, but from the broader society. She felt that I had escaped the public housing projects in the Bronx, only to suffer another prejudice -- one that might be harder to beat -- as the law wasn't on my side. At the time, it felt like her own homophobia. Now I see there was also a mother's love and a real desire to protect her son. She was not wrong at a very fundamental level. She knew that treating gay and lesbian people like second class citizens -- people who may be worthy of "tolerance, " as Sarah Palin asserts, but not of equality -- was and still is the last socially-acceptable prejudice.

Even before I came out to them, I struggled to accept myself as a gay man. I didn't want to lose the love of my family, and I wanted a family of my own -- however I defined it. I ultimately chose to find my own way in life as a gay man. This wasn't as easy as it sounds even though it was the mid-1980s. I watched loved ones and friends die of AIDS. I was convinced I would never see my 40th birthday, much less find a partner whom I could marry.

As years passed, my Mom, Dad and I came to a peace, and they came to love and respect me for who I am. They even came to defend my right to live with equality and dignity -- often fighting against the homophobia they heard among their family and friends and in church.

The right to be equal citizens and to marry whomever we wish -- unimaginable to me when I first came out -- is now ours to lose in California unless we stand up for what's right. All of us must fight against what's wrong. In my 43 short years of life, I have seen gay and lesbian people go from pariahs and objects of legally-sanctioned discrimination to being on the cusp of full equality. The unimaginable comes true in our America if we make it happen. But, it requires effort and struggle.

One of the things I love about the ACLU is that it's an organization that understands we are all in this together. We recognize that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Given what's at stake in the outcome of this election, I am personally appealing to you for help to fight the forces of intolerance from carrying the day in California next Tuesday.

If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. You can send them a message here.

We need to make sure people keep in mind that gay people are part of every family and every community -- that like everyone else, gay people want the same rights to commit to their partners, to take care of each other and to take responsibility for each other. We shouldn’t deny that, and we shouldn’t write discrimination into any constitution in any state. Certainly, we can't let that happen in California after the highest court in the state granted gay and lesbian people their full equality.

Unfortunately, due to a vicious, deceitful $30 million advertising blitz, the supporters of Prop 8 may be within days of taking that fundamental right away.

To stop the forces of discrimination from succeeding, we have to win over conflicted voters who aren't sure they're ready for gay marriage but who are also uncomfortable going into a voting booth and stripping away people's rights. With the ACLU contributing time, energy and millions of dollars to the effort, we're working hard to reach those key voters before next Tuesday.

If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. Share this email with them. Call them. Direct them to our website for more information.

Don't let other young people grow up to be afraid to be who they are because of the discrimination and prejudice they might face. Let them see a future that the generation before them couldn't even dream of -- a future as full and equal citizens of the greatest democracy on earth.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." As we strive to defeat Prop 8 and the injustice it represents, the ACLU is trying to make that arc a little shorter.

On behalf of my Mom and family, and on behalf of all the people who will never face legally-sanctioned discrimination, I thank you for being part of this struggle and for doing everything you can to help.

It is a privilege and honor to have you as allies in this fight for dignity and equality.

With enormous appreciation,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

P.S. All the polls show that the vote on Prop 8 could go either way. By making just a few calls or sending just a few emails, you could help make the difference. Please, don’t let this fundamental right be taken away. Send an eCard to everyone you know in California.

Andy in Harrisburg

And another thing....

To follow up on Chris's post from yesterday, national ACLU has an excellent "Freedom Alert" video from Matt Coles, the director of the ACLU's LGBT Project. Here it is.



And there's another ballot initiative out there that attacks civil liberties- Measure 11 in South Dakota. This is yet another attempt to enact a law that can ultimately challenge Roe v. Wade. Check out national's blog for info about what's happening in SD, including a Freedom Alert video.

Andy in Harrisburg

Liberty is on the ballot November 4

No, this is not about a candidate. The ACLU is a steadfast non-partisan organization. We have never endorsed any candidate or any party and we never will. This year, however, essential liberty itself is on the ballot in at least two states. They may not be official Pennsylvania issues, but we Pennsylvanians can stand up and do something.



California's Proposition 8

In California, voters will decide whether to strip gay and lesbian Californians of the right to marry. In case you missed it, the California Supreme Court ruled in May that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the California state constitution. Since then gay men and lesbians have had the same rights as their heterosexual neighbors, but now a ballot initiative (Proposition 8) would allow a simple majority to deny those fundamental rights.

Early polling showed that most Californians didn't like the idea of voting to take away rights from anyone, but supporters of Proposition 8 have gained ground by using the oldest of political techniques: outright lies. Last I checked, the polls showed liberty losing to lies.

This is a huge fight. Huge. California is super-influential around the rest of the country. Think of it as a REALLY big domino. The victory in May was a gigantic leap forward for equal marriage rights in the United States. If Prop 8 passes, it will be two gigantic leaps back.

If you don't live in California you can't vote against Proposition 8, but no matter where you live there is lots that you can do to help in the fight. You can phone bank voters in California, you can help raise exposure for the issue, you can even make your own commercial urging voters to vote NO on Prop 8. Most importantly, you can GIVE MONEY. This fight is being lost on dollars alone, and right now the bad guys have more. Go to www.noonprop8.com to contribute, or to join the fight in other ways.

Florida's Proposition 2

Prop 2 in Florida is scarier than Prop 8 in California, but it is less likely to pass. Unlike California, which requires a simple majority, Florida requires 60% of the voting public to amend the state constitution. Prop 2 would outlaw gay marriage AND any form of civil union, and has a neat little "no takebacks, no reversies" clause that bars any judge from overturning the law once passed.

Polls say that Prop 2 is unlikely to pass - only 55% of Floridians oppose civil liberties - but we must take nothing for granted. Visit http://www.sayno2.com/ to learn more about Florida's Proposition 2.

Chris in Philly

Friday First Amendment Roundup

A new feature collecting first-amendment related news from around the country. I'm not promising this will happen every Friday, but I'll do my best. And now I'm thinking I should have called it "First Amendment Rodeo!" Oh well. Here we go!!

We start in Philadelphia, where the Third Circuit dismissed a civil suit against the city by Repent America, stemming from the arrest of eleven Repent America members at the 2004 "OutFest" LGBT block party in Center City.

As the Delaware County Times reports, the court ruled that while Repent America had the right to be present at the event (overruling a lower court ruling that the permit issued to event organizers PhillyPride effectively shut Repent America out) but that they crossed a line by intentionally disrupting the permitted event.

World Net Daily, always a fascinating read, offers their own (somewhat slanted) take on the ruling.

***

Frank D. LoMonte has a guest column at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about attempts to limit the speech rights of public high school students across the country, including some here in Pennsylvania. Not satisfied with being little dictators inside their own walls, some school administrators now want the power to discipline students for their speech outside of school. These are the first few aftershocks of Morse v. Frederick (AKA "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"); where once schools taught their students civics, the lesson now is "sit down, shut up, and do as you're told."

***

On the international stage, the Beijing Olympics are casting a spotlight on many Chinese human rights offenses (including an alleged instruction from Chinese authorities that bars near the Olympic Village are not to admit anyone black or Mongolian) but also on the speech-limiting practices of American corporations (like Google and Microsoft) doing business in China.

The United Nations, meanwhile, is considering a resolution that would criminalize any criticism, parody, or defamation of any religion. Similar laws already stand in many nations - including Canada, where people are sued with some regularity for critical comments or jokes directed at religions. Julia Duin at the Washington Post fears the UN restrictions would be so strict that "anybody anywhere could sue for merely having hurt feelings."

Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman agree, and took time out to write a piece for the Wall Street Journal saying so. Congress is currently considering three separate bills that would protect Americans from being sued in foreign courts over Constitutionally-protected comments.

***

On the topic of religion and offense, how about that New Yorker cover, huh??

Jayne Lyn Stahl at the Huffington Post casts the rollicking fracas over the cover in the light of history, presenting reflections on free expression and offensiveness from some folks you may have heard of - including Richard Nixon ("the rights of free speech...do not carry with them the right to advocate the destruction of the very government which protects the freedom" - good old Dick!), FDR, and Salmon Rushdie ("What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.")

I especially love that Rushdie quote. After all, speech that offends no one requires no law to protect it. Right?

***

Speaking of offensive speech... The US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that a white-supremacist soldier's racist AOL profile was protected by the First Amendment because he did not direct the statements at anyone in particular (a majority of the world's population, sure, but no one in his unit) and "they did not interfere with his job performance or with any military mission," and that he could therefore not be disciplined or discharged because of the profile.

One wonders how an Army paratrooper's job performance is not impaired when he identifies his race as "Aryan," quotes "the imprisoned matyr" [sic] David Lane, and recommends a book in which white Christians kill a mixed-race couple, and when said Army paratrooper's job partly entails making informed decisions about what people he should and should not shoot. One of the five justices did file a dissent.

Still, I guess it's good to see that even if you're enlisted, the Constitution still protects your right to express yourself as a racist jerk.

***

Finally, on the Establishment Front (all quiet since Christmas - right, Bill?) the Texas State Board of Education has approved an elective Bible course to be taught in public high schools. Now, before you go and assume the Board went off half-cocked (a little Texas humor for you, there), read what the Dallas Morning News has to say:

"Among those who urged the board to issue specific guidelines for the class was Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, who helped write the 2007 law. Mr. Hochberg warned that without specific guidance from the state, some schools would run afoul of the First Amendment requirement of religious neutrality for such classes."

Of course, in the end the majority of the Board voted just to approve "a Bible course" and not to issue any guidelines to tell schools how they should go about teaching it.

"Attorney General Gregg Abbott has told the baord that while the state standards for the Bible class appear to be in compliance with the First Amendment, his office can't guarantee that the courses taught in high schools will be constitutional because they haven't been reviewed.

Critics contend that the board standards for the course are so vague and general that many schools might unknowingly create unconstitutional Bible classes that either promote the religious views of teachers or disparage the religious beliefs of some students."

A Bible class that promotes the religious views of the teachers? In Texas? I don't see what everyone is so worried about. I mean, how often do you hear about teachers pushing their religious views on students?

Sarcasm aside, Texas Board of Education, let me be the first to say: "Thank you for your contribution to the ACLU."

So in conclusion: Texans have never been big on the separation of Church and State. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

***

Two small notes:

If you missed the New York Times FISA ad that ACLU ran this week, you can see it here.

And lastly, most of you will (hopefuly) be as happy as me to read that Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California, is currently trailing in polls 51 to 42 percent, with less than four months remaining until the vote.

Chris in Philly

Pride, marriage and much, much more...

Hooray! The recent decision in California that guarantees the right to marry for two individuals of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation, gives many reason to celebrate. In light of pride month (and in conjunction with the decision) the ACLU is hosting an online symposium on LGBT pride this week.

It is important to remember, however, that marriage is but one forum where discrimination must end. Here's an interview from Here and Now on WBUR--NPR Boston that highlights the importance of equal access and the long road that is still ahead.

Ellen, Duvall Intern