1:13-cv-01861 #115.attachments Part 2

EXHIBIT PX-32
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-16 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 106

Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WHITEWOOD, et al., CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
CA No. 13-1861-JEJ
vs.
WOLF, et al.,
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF:
Defendants. DIANA POLSON
DEPOSITION DATE:
March 5, 2014
Wednesday, 2:07 p.m.
- - - -
C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L
- - - -
PARTY TAKING DEPOSITION:
Defendants Secretary of
Health Michael Wolf and
Secretary of Revenue Dan
Meuser
COUNSEL OF RECORD
FOR THIS PARTY:
Maureen M. McBride, Esq.
LAMB McERLANE, P.C.
24 E. Market Street
P.O. Box 565
West Chester, PA 19381
REPORTED BY:
Catherine C. Leverty
Notary Public
Veritext National Court Reporting Company
Mid-Atlantic Region
1801 Market Street Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Page 23
1 characterization of things.
2 In terms of what I would like to
3 add --
4 Q. Why don't you just tell me, sort of, the whole
5 universe, so we're sure we have everything?
6 A. Okay. You know, Dawn and I have been together
7 for 13 and a half years, and we've put a lot of
8 time and thought into creating a family. You
9 know, it's very -- family is, obviously, very
10 important to us and, you know, we want to raise
11 our kids -- want to raise happy and healthy
12 kids, and kids that are confident and feel good
13 about who they are and where they come from, and
14 I would say it's difficult to live in a place
15 and to explain to our five-year-old why our
16 family, why his parents can't get married.
17 That's a hardship on us, and, you know, I
18 believe an injustice for him.
19 Beyond that, you know, we have to go
20 through not being able to get married, we have
21 to go through the process of the second-parent
22 adoption, which is costly and time-consuming.
23 There was a period of time when
24 E , our oldest, was born, that I wasn't
25 considered a legal guardian, and that made us

EXHIBIT PX-33

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
-----
3
WHITEWOOD, ET AL., ) CA No. 13-1861-JEJ
4 )
Plaintiffs, )
5 )
vs. )
6 )
WOLF, ET AL., )
7 )
Defendants. )
8
-----
9
Deposition of Deborah Whitewood
10 Wednesday, March 5, 2014
11 Filed on behalf of the Defendants
Secretary of Health and Secretary of Revenue
12
Counsel of Record for this Party:
13 Joel L. Frank, Esq.
Lamb McErlane
14 24 East Market Street
PO Box 565
15 West Chester, PA 19381
16 -----
17 CONFIDENTIAL
18 -----
19
20
21 Veritext National Court Reporting Company
Mid-Atlantic Region
22 1801 Market Street Suite 1800
23
24
25
Page 1
VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING COMPANY
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
1 married now, because I'm married in Maryland
2 and the federal government recognizes that,
3 but the state doesn't, so I have to fill out
4 single, I have to check that box that says
5 "single." And then, on the next page, I have
6 to sign a piece where it says, this is the
7 truth, you are signing this, but I'm not
8 single. So how can I sign it saying I'm single
9 when I'm not single?
10 There's a lot of times where I have to
11 check a box that says "single"; that bothers me
12 because I'm not single, I'm married, and that
13 hurts. There's a lot of those hurts that
14 happen. There's -- those are a thousand wounds
15 that have happened over the course of 20 years.
16 Q. Okay. Do you want a moment?
17 A. (Indicating).
18 MR. FRANK: Okay. Let's go off
19 the record.
20 (Recess taken.)
21 BY MR. FRANK:
22 Q. Were you done with your response,
23 Ms. Whitewood?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Let's go ahead and go
Page 53
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

EXHIBIT PX-34

CONFIDENTIAL
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
WHITEWOOD, et al., CIVIL DIVISION
3
Plaintiffs,
4 CA No. 13-1861-JEJ
vs.
5
WOLF, et al.,
6 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF:
Defendants. FREDIA LYNN HURDLE
7
8
DEPOSITION DATE:
9 March 6, 2014
Thursday, 11:45 a.m.
10 - - - -
C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T-I-A-L
11 - - - -
12 PARTY TAKING DEPOSITION:
Defendants Secretary of
13 Health Michael Wolf and
Secretary of Revenue Dan
14 Meuser
15
COUNSEL OF RECORD
16 FOR THIS PARTY:
Maureen M. McBride, Esq.
17 Joel L. Frank, Esq.
LAMB McERLANE, P.C.
18 24 E. Market Street
P.O. Box 565
19 West Chester, PA 19381
20
21 REPORTED BY:
Catherine C. Leverty
22 Notary Public
23 Veritext National Court Reporting Company
Mid-Atlantic Region
24 1801 Market Street Suite 1800
25
Page 1
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
CONFIDENTIAL
1 A. The fact is, I'm black; the fact is, Lynn and I
2 are in an interracial relationship; the fact is,
3 all this is making me think back to Virginia,
4 coming up as a child, having to deal with these
5 issues.
6 Whether or not people know, I lived
7 it, okay, so -- and you can think, oh, well,
8 this doesn't happen, but come there and live and
9 I'll show you where it happened at, you know.
10 The fact is that as I have sat here
11 and went over all of this stuff, you know, which
12 means something, it hurts, emotionally, it hurts
13 to think all I want is, one, just to be happy;
14 that's a fact. I want my family to be
15 recognized, just like anybody else, that's a
16 fact. You know, it may not be something
17 tangible, I guess, is what they would call it,
18 you know, but it's a fact, and I want it on that
19 record that it is my fact.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. Okay. That's it.
22 Q. Anything else?
23 A. No, ma'am.
24 MS. McBRIDE: I have no further
25 questions. Thank you for your time.
Page 74
215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830

EXHIBIT PX-35


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEB WHITEWOOD, et al., : 1:13-CV-1861
Plaintiffs, :
v. :
: Hon. John E. Jones III
MICHAEL WOLF, in his official capacity as :
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of :
Health, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant Michael Wolf, in his official capacity as the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvanias Secretary of Health, and Defendant Dan Meuser, in his official
capacity as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias Secretary of Revenue
(hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants), hereby respond and object to
Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories directed to All Defendants (Interrogatories)
as follows.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs designation of the Interrogatories as
continuing, to the extent that this designation calls for supplementation of
Defendants responses beyond that which is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
2
Procedure. Defendants will supplement the responses in accordance with Rule
26(e) if and when appropriate.
2. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek
documents or information beyond that which is within the possession, custody,
control or knowledge of the Defendants.
3. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request
information or documentation that is already in Plaintiffs possession, is equally
available to Plaintiffs as well as Defendants, or that may be derived or ascertained
from Plaintiffs own knowledge.
4. Defendants state that they are responding to Interrogatories to the best
of their current knowledge, information, belief and ability. Defendants
investigation and discovery is continuing and they reserve the right to amend,
modify or strike any of their answers to Interrogatories based on the discovery of
information not currently known to them.
5. Defendants object to Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information that is protected by various privileges of confidentiality, including the
attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. In setting forth their
responses, Defendants do not waive, nor do they intend to waive, the attorney-
client privilege, work product doctrine protections, or other privilege or immunity.
3
6. Defendants submit these responses subject to, and without waiving or
intending to waive, but rather reserving and intending to reserve:
a. all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality,
privilege, and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of any of the
responses given herein;
b. the right to object to other discovery procedures or requests
involving or concerning the subject matter of the admission herein
responded to; and
c. the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement, or clarify
any of the responses set forth herein.
7. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that their
purpose is to require Defendants to set forth conclusions of law to ultimate issues
in this proceeding and/or an application of law to the facts as presently known.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
If you contend that 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 are constitutional,
identify and describe with particularity each and every state interest that you
contend is advanced by 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or 1704, and include in your
answer for each such state interest:
4
a. A detailed explanation of why you contend that 23 Pa.C.S. 1102
and/or 1704 furthers that state interest, and all facts in support of your explanation;
b. A statement of whether you contend that the state interest is a
compelling government interest and that 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 is closely
tailored to that interest, and all facts in support of your contention;
c. A statement of whether you contend that the state interest is an
important government interest and that 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 is
substantially related to that interest, and all facts in support of your contention; and
d. A statement of whether you contend that the state interest is a
legitimate government interest and that 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 is
rationally related to that interest, and all facts in support of your contention.
Response:
Defendants object to this request for the following reasons:
(1) The relevant standard of constitutional review is the rational-
basis test, and any conceivable rational basis or legitimate interest is sufficient
to uphold the law.
(2) This interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not
reasonably specific.
5
(3) This interrogatory as overly burdensome and seeks publicly
available information that is equally accessible to Plaintiffs.
(4) This interrogatory calls for the disclosure of information that is
protected by the attorney-work product and the attorney-client privilege and
otherwise seeks disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications.
Subject to these objections, and without waiving applicable general
objections, the legislative history (attached hereto) establishes that the
provisions of the Pennsylvania Marriage Statute, specifically 23 Pa.C.S.
1102 and 1704, were duly enacted pursuant to Pennsylvania law. The
Marriage Statute provisions at issue were finally passed by the Pennsylvania
General Assembly on October 7, 1996, and signed into law by former
Governor Ridge on October 16, 1996. Thus, by virtue of long-standing
principles of Pennsylvania law, in the absence of a determination by a court of
competent jurisdiction that the Marriage Statute provisions violate the
Pennsylvania Constitution or the United States Constitution, the Marriage
Statute, including 1102 and 1704 as passed by the General Assembly, is
presumptively constitutional.
Without waiver of any of their objections, a review of the legislative
history (attached hereto) establishes the following as state interests that the
General Assembly conceivably might consider to be served by the legislation:
6
(i) The General Assembly viewed the promotion of procreation as a
compelling, important and legitimate state interest, and 23 Pa.C.S. 1102
and 1704 are closely tailored, substantially related and rationally related to
the promotion and protection of that state interest. (See, e.g., Representative
Stern statement)(A true and correct copy of the applicable legislative history
is attached hereto).
(ii) The General Assembly identified child rearing and the well-being
of children as compelling, important and legitimate state interests, and 23
Pa.C.S. 1102 and 1704 are closely tailored, substantially related and
rationally related to that state interest. (See, e.g., Representative Stern
statement)(attached hereto).
(iii) The General Assembly identified tradition as a compelling,
important and legitimate state interest, and 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and 1704 are
closely tailored, substantially related and rationally related to that interest.
(See, e.g., Representative Egolf statement) (attached hereto); (Representative
Stern statement)(attached hereto).
Facts that could be cited in support of the conceivable state interests
described above, including, but not limited to: (1) all facts and responsive
averments set forth in the Answer to the First Amended Complaint; (2) the
legislative history of the Pennsylvania Marriage Statutes and all amendments
7
to those laws; (3) any and all facts and related reasons supporting the theories
articulated by the General Assembly; (4) any and all facts developed or
revealed through discovery; and (5) any and all facts otherwise identified at
any stage of the proceedings.
In addition to those interests set forth above, Defendants reserve the
right to supplement this response with any other legitimate state interests that
the General Assembly conceivably might have been attempting to advance, or
conceivably might be seeking to advance currently, though the legislation that
are evident from the legislative history surrounding the enactment of
Marriage Statutes or any amendments thereto, including specifically 1102
and 1704, or otherwise are identified at any stage of the proceedings.

To the extent any state interest that you identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 1 is related to protecting the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and/or its taxpayers from adverse economic impacts, describe with particularity
how the Commonwealth and/or its taxpayers would suffer adverse economic
impacts if same-sex couples were permitted to marry and/or have their marriages
recognized in Pennsylvania, and all facts (including all calculations) supporting
this contention.
8

Response:
Defendants object to this interrogatory for the following reasons:
(1) The interrogatory is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and not
(2) The interrogatory as overly burdensome in that it seeks publicly
(3) A party has no duty to produce evidence to sustain the
rationality of a statutory classification. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320
(1993) (quotation omitted). Moreover, statutes such as the Marriage Statute
are legislative choicesnot subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be
based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.
F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, I nc. 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993).
Subject to and without waiving these objections, the legislative history
suggests that the General Assembly would have reasonable cause for concern
that redefining marriage would bring about adverse economic consequences.
(See, e.g., Representative Egolf statement) (attached hereto).
As more information becomes available, Defendants may supplement
this response.
9
To the extent any state interest that you identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 1 is related to protecting Pennsylvania businesses, describe with
particularity how Pennsylvania businesses would be harmed financially or
otherwise if same-sex couples were permitted to marry and/or have their marriages
recognized in Pennsylvania, and all facts (including all calculations) supporting
this contention.
Response:
(2) The interrogatory is overly burdensome in that it seeks publicly
(3) A party has no duty to produce evidence to sustain the
rationality of a statutory classification. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320
(1993) (quotation omitted). Moreover, statutes such as the Marriage Statute
are legislative choicesnot subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be
based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.
F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, I nc. 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993).
10
suggests that the General Assembly would have reasonable cause for concern
that redefining marriage would detrimentally affect Pennsylvania businesses.
See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3, above.

To the extent any state interest you identified in response to Interrogatory
No. 1 is related to protecting or promoting the well-being of children or families in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, describe with particularity all facts
supporting the contention that the prohibition of marriage by same-sex couples
and/or the prohibition on the recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples in
Pennsylvania protects or promotes the interests of any children or families in
Pennsylvania.
Response:
(2) The interrogatory is overly burdensome in that it seeks publicly
11
(3) This interrogatory is needlessly duplicative, cumulative and
redundant and seeks to elicit repetitive information through multiple
interrogatories.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, that the legislative
history suggests that the General Assembly might reasonably conclude that
the Marriage Statutes protect and promote the well-being of children and
families in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as previously stated in
response to Interrogatory No. 1 (incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
at length below).

By: /s/ William H. Lamb
Date: 12/16/13 William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
LAMB MCERLANE PC
24 East Market Street
(610) 430-8000

Counsel for Defendants
Secretary of Health Michael
Wolf and Secretary of Revenue
Dan Meuser


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that in this case complete copies of all papers contained in
Defendants Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Defendants
Response to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents have
been served upon the following persons electronically on December 16, 2013:
Mark A. Aronchick, Esquire
John S. Stapleton, Esquire
Dylan. Steinberg, Esquire
Rebecca S. Melley, Esquire
HANGLEY ARONCHICK, SEGAL, PUDLIN & SCHILLER
One Logan Square, 27
th
Floor
Counsel for Plaintiffs

James D. Esseks, Esquire
Leslie Cooper, Esquire
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18
th
Floor
New York, NY 10004

Mary Catherine Roper, Esquire
Molly M. Tack-Hooper, Esquire
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
P.O. Box 40008

Witold J. Walczak, Esquire
313 Atwood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213


Seth F. Kreimer, Esquire
3400 Chestnut Street

Nathan D. Fox, Esquire
BEGLEY CARLIN & MANDIO LLP
680 Middletown Blvd.
Langhorne, PA 19047
Counsel for Defendant Petrille

Frank A. Chernak, Esquire
John P. McLaughlin, Esquire
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51
st
Floor

William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
LAMB MCERLANE PC
(610) 430-8000

Counsel for Defendants
Secretary of Health Michael
Wolf and Secretary of Revenue
Dan Meuser
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE JUNE 28
Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, L. I.
Cohen, M.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Comell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
Coy- ---
curry
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DeWeese
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
-PPO
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Itkin
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Ke-nney -
King
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Marsico
Masland
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Merry
Michlovic
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Myers
Naiior
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Peael
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Platts
Preston
Ramos
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Thomas
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Veon
Vitali
Walk0
Washington
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
RY an,
Speaker
NOT VOTI NG4
Farmer Mihalich
The majority required by the Constitution having voted in the
affmative, the question was determined in the affmat i ve and the
bill passed finally.
Ordered, That the clerk return the same to the Senate with the
information that the House has passed the same with amendment
in which the concurrence of the Senate is requested.
The House proceeded to third consideration of SB 434, PN
1059, entitled:
An Act amending Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes, providing for petition for custody by grandparents.
On the question,
Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration ?
Mr. EGOLF offered the following amendment No. A5104:
Amend Title, page 1, lines 2 through 4, by striking out all of said ,
lines and inserting
Consolidated Statutes, defining "marriage"; and
adding provisions relating to same sex marriages.
Amend Bill, page 1, lines 7 through 18; page 2, lines 1 through 20,
by striking out all of said lines on said pages and inserting
Section 1. Section 1102 of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a definition to read:
jj 1102. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this part shall have
the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
* * *
" .
ah mag^" A d ~ i l m n t m t b y which me-man and one wman
t a k e b o t h e r and wife*
* * *
Section 2. Title 23 is amended by adding a section to read:
g. llae MamgdxWbetweenpersansof the sameswr.
l t ~ h erebv declared slrong and 1ongstandIng publicpdicy
o f t h i s - 1 bmar r i aee shallL!Qlle-
w m a n L B ~ e t w e e n ~ the same sex, ~~
into in anohml at ear h r e i g n w t i o n . eluen if valid whacentered
mto. shallbtlYnidinthisCnmm~nwmarriaeeaIth
Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
On the question,
Will the House agree to the amendment?
The SPEAKER. The House will come to order.
This is an amendment that in some quarters might be
considered controversial. You had better listen.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Egolf.
Mr. EGOLF. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman yield.
The House will come to order.
Conferences on the floor will please break up; conferences on
the floor will please break up.
The gentleman, Mr. Egolf, would you advise the Chair whether
you are offering 5 104 or 5425.
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is 5425.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN
The SPEAKER. Amendment A5 104 is withdrawn.
On the question recurring,
1996 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE 2017
Mr. EGOLF offered the following amendment No. A5425:
Amend Title, page 1, line 2, by inserting after "M
defining "marriage"; adding provisions relating to
same sex marriages; and
Amend Bill, page 1, lines 7 and 8, by striking out all of said lines
and inserting
Section 1. Section 1102 of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a definition to read:
8 1102. Definitions.
* * *
cxmm-b&~ch.-
--*
* * *
$-me h 4 a m a g e l 2 e k e m p ~ ~ ~
I M y b W _ t a h t h e v
. .
x
nfthi---md
l?Lcmm.Amarriage-3-
i n t n i ~ ~ f i m i g n j ~ I f vah-
. .
reentered
i n t a s h d l b a Q i d ~ ~
Section 3. Section 5313 of Title 23 is amended to read:
Amend Sec. 2, page 2, line 20, by striking out "2" and inserting
4
On the question,
Will the House agree to the amendment ?
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman,
Mr. Egolf.
Mr. Speaker, according to Article IV, section 1, of the
U.S. Constitution, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each
State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every
other State." This means that, generally, if a marriage is valid
where it is performed, it is valid everywhere.
However, there are exceptions to the full faith and credit
clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that every State is
entitled to enforce its own statutes in its own courts, and not every
statute from another State will override a conflicting statute in
Pennsylvania. In the case of marriage, the exception allows States
not to recognize marriages if they are repugnant to the public
policy of the home State.
Since no State has ever recognized same-sex marriages before,
the question has never come before the courts. If and when the
question comes to Pennsylvania courts, we want to remove any
potential confusion and misinterpretation. This amendment
introduced by Representative Maitland and myself specifically
states what our policy is and always has been - that these so-called
marriages are contrary to our public policy and will not be
recognized in Pennsylvania.
This amendment does not take anything away from anyone that
they now have. It is simply an expression of Pennsylvania's
traditional and longstanding policy of moral opposition to
same-sex marriages, as described by DeSanto v. Barnsley,
Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1984, and support of the traditional
family unit. In addition, this amendment serves many other
practical purposes for the Commonwealth of today and the future.
For example, legalizing same-sex marriages would place
another unfunded mandate on our business community. Any
existing pension or insurance program providing benefits to a
spouse would now have to include an entirely new supply of
so-called spouses. The providers of these benefits would have to
assume a liability they never conceived when the promise was
made. To avoid these new liabilities, providers would have to
cancel and rewrite the agreements, and future agreements might
even delete the coverage of spouse and family that Pennsylvania
workers have come to depend on.
The burden on the public sector could be great as well. In
recognizing same-sex marriages, courts would also have to hear all
same-sex divorce suits. This will only compound the backlog of
cases in our judicial system. Social Security, tax, and other benefits
presently conferred on spouses would have to be expanded to
include married partners of the same sex. The financial costs
imposed on society by the forced recognition of same-sex marriage
cannot even be calculated at this time.
Ours is a democratic form of government. Do you want a
group of judges in Hawaii determining Pennsylvania's laws and
policies? If the people of Pennsylvania want us to change our
marriage laws, we have the legislative process to do that. However,
I do not believe that they want to do that at this time. A C W S A
Today poll taken in March of this year indicated that nearly
70 percent - 68 percent to be exact - of Americans are opposed to
same-sex marriages.
As our U.S. Supreme Court said in 1885 and Justice Scalia
recently reiterated in Romer v. Evans, quote, "Certainly no
legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the
founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank
as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks
to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting
in and springing from the union for life of one man and one
woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all
that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of
that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent
progress in social and political improvement," end quote.
I urge you to vote "yes" on this amendment. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Philadelphia, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 19- Mr. Speaker, would Mr. Egolf
submit to interrogation ?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman indicates he will stand for
interrogation. You may begin.
Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 1996, you introduced HB 2604,
which is identical to this amendment. On May 22, 1996, the
U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Romer v. Evans -and you have
referred to the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia in that case -
said that laws restricting the rights of homosexuals are valid only
if they bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate
legislative end. Are you familiar with the majority opinion of that
decision ?
Mr. EGOLF. Somewhat, yes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, the decision called for a rational
relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end.
2018 LEGISLATIVE JC
Would you care to explain what you think is the legitimate
legislative end that this amendment serves ?
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the moral and
economic- That is the consequences and implications of the
moral aspect of that - and economic.
Mr. COHEN. Morsl l decona%i c aspects, MII. Speaker.
Mr. EGOLF. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. COHEN. Well, Mr. Speaker, is there any law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requiring businesses to offer
benefits to spouses now ?
Mr. EGOLF. There is no law that requires that that I am aware
of.
Mr. COHEN. And there is no law requiring it to homosexual
spouses, is there ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is correct.
Mr. COHEN. Would the legislature not have to pass a law
extending the benefit to homosexual partners and requiring that
businesses offer this in order for them to be so required ?
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is not a law, but it has been
common practice for employers to offer special benefits to spouses
at work.
Mr. COHEN. There is no law requiring employers to offer
benefits to spouses.
Mr. COHEN. And there is no law in Pennsylvania saying that
you have to offer the same thing to homosexuals as you offer to
nonhomosexuals, is there ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is correct, as far as I am aware.
Mr. COHEN. Well, homosexuals are not a protected class
under Pennsylvania law or under Federal law, are they ?
Mr. EGOLF. I am sorry; I did not hear that first part.
Mt. COHEN. Homosexuals are not a protected class-
Mr. COHEN. -under Federal law.
Mr. Speaker, will this amendment stop homosexuals from
living with each other?
Mr. EGOLF. No, this wouid not.
Mr. COHEN. Will this amendment stop homosexuals from
having sexual relations with each other?
Mr. EGOLF. No, it would not.
Mr. COHEN. Will this amendment stop people from becoming
homosexuals ?
having exclusive relationships with each other and not having
sexual relationships with others ?
Mr. EGOLF. It would not do that. All it does is prevent a
marriage or the recognition of marriage from another State.
Mr. COHEN. Is it safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that your concern
is not with the effect that this has on homosexuals but with the
economic well-being of businesses that offer benefits? Your
concern is with the effect on businesses, not with the effect on
homosexuals ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is part of it. It is also to protect the
institution of marriage as we have it now.
Mr. COHEN. And the institution of marriage that we have now
is concerned with heterosexuals, obviously.
Mr. Lynch, would you like to answer-
Mr. EGOLF. Would you say the question again, please ?
URNAL - HOUSE JUNE 28
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, could you repeat that? I could not
hear you.
Mr. EGOLF. Would you repeat the question, please.
Mr. COHEN. Okay.
Mr. Speaker, your concern in offering this amendment is
primarily t k effect t h t this has on bssinesses which offer
benefits, and secondarily, the effect that this may have, that
homosexual marriages may have, on heterosexuals.
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this is for several
reasons. One is that I feel that we have a legislative process in
Pennsylvania. We should not let the judges in another State
determine our State policy. If the people in our State want a
change, we have the process to do it. That is part of it. And of
course, the other is, if we recognize or if we are forced to
'
recognize because of another State, if we are forced to recognize
same-sex marriages, this would put an unfunded mandate on our
businesses, another burden on our taxpayers, and so on. So these
are also peripheral reasons.
Mr. COHEN. Okay. Well, we have agreed, though, it is not a
mandate; it is a custom. There is no State mandate requiring the
offering of the benefits in the first place. We have agreed on that.
Mr. Speaker, do you expect that if we do not pass this
amendment, some or many heterosexuals in Pennsylvania will
become homosexuals ?
Mr. EGOLF. I think these questions you are asking, the answer
is obvious. Just look; it is a very short amendment. All it does is
require us to not recognize same-sex marriages that are performed
in another State or performed in Pennsylvania. That is all the
amendment does, and what it does is redefine and clarify our
longstanding policy in Pennsylvania. That is all it does. It is that
simple.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will yield.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, do you believe-
Conferences on ihe fioor, piease go to one of the chambers
outside of the House, outside of the floor of the House.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. LYNCH. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have not finished my
interrogation.
The gentleman, Mr. Lynch, raises a point of order. What is
your point of order ?
Mr. LYNCH. Well, I will tell you, I am not quite sure what the
point of order is; however, I believe that the minority chair has
really become argumentative in this interrogation and has gone
past the point of seeking factual information from the sponsor of
the amendment and is now looking for judgmental information. 1
do not believe that that is the purpose of an interrogation. He is not
sticking to the facts; he is looking for judgmental information. I do
.
not think that is appropriate.
The SPEAKER. I hesitate to say this; I disagree with you,
though. As 1 have listened to the gentleman, Mr. Cohen, I think he
1996 LEGISLATIVE
is within the bounds of interrogation, but I will listen more closely.
And I do not usually side with the gentleman, Mr. Cohen, but,
Mr. Cohen, you go ahead.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that nonpartisan
ruling.
The SPEAKER. Everyone is entitled to one.
Mr. COHEN. I think I have gotten more than that from you,
sir.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is your view that this amendment is not
designed to benefit the vast majority of Pennsylvanians; it just is
a very simple, narrow purpose.
Mr. EGOLF. It is designed to benefit the vast majority of
Pennsylvanians, because the large majority do not want our
traditional marriage institution and our state of morals to be
changed. That has been shown in a scientific poll.
Mr. COHEN. So it is a majority sentiment against changing
morals that also motivates you, not just saving money for
business ?
Mr. EGOLF. Oh, certainly.
I have no further questions of the gentleman. I would like to
speak.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely politically
charged issue, and therefore, I am not going to make any
recommendations on how anybody ought to vote. I believe,
however, that Mr. Egolf has not stated a reason under the majority
opinion of Romer v. Evans why this is a rational State policy.
Mr. Egolf, the prime sponsor of this legislation, when he kept
the exact same wording of this legislation that was drafted before
the Romer v. Evans decision, after the Romer v. Evans decision,
which was the first case in the history of the United States at a
Supreme Court level to specifically recognize that homosexuals
have some constitutional rights as homosexuals, the prime sponsor
of this bill made the judgment that that Supreme Court decision
was irrelevant to this issue. Whether it is irrelevant or not is
subject, of course, to the judgment of the Federal courts.
I would like to read some quotes from the majority opinion
supported by seven of the nine judges on the Supreme Court, all
the judges except Rehnquist - 1 am sorry - all the judges except
Scalia and Thomas, which I think indicates that this case is of
some relevance. I also think that this is obviously an issue that is
going to be litigated all around the country and that Pennsylvania's
courts and the third circuit courts are among the most liberal courts
in the country, and I am not certain that Mr. Egolf is going to be
very happy about providing an easy vehicle for the Pennsylvania
district courts and the third circuit Federal courts to express their
opinions and seek to influence the U.S. Supreme Court on this. But
in any case, you know, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to be
voting on it, and Pennsylvania courts and third circuit courts now
will have, assuming this amendment becomes law, an opportunity
to express their opinions.
The Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans said, and I am just
reading excerpts, "Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a
solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the
private and governmental spheres," under Amendment 2 of the
Colorado Constitution. That is the same situation that we have
here.
JOURNAL - HOUSE 2019
" 'If the adverse impact on the disfavored class' " - which is
homosexuals - " 'is an apparent aim of the legislature' " - the
Supreme Court said in the majority opinion - " 'its impartiality
would be suspect.' "
" 'Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through
indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.' "
"Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a
certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general
hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more
difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid
from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the
laws in the most literal sense.''
"We must conclude" - the 7-2 majority said - "that
Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper
legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This
Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a
stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection
Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is
affirmed." That was the U.S. Supreme Court about 5 weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an issue that has not yet
come before us in any real sense. We are expediting, in my
judgment, the Federal courts dealing with this issue, which is
totally the opposite of Mr. Egolf s wishes on this matter.
I personally intend to vote against this bill, because I have
doubts about its constitutionality. I have doubts about whether it
meets the goals set forth by the Supreme Court. I personally
believe that the overwhelming majority of all homosexuals are
biological homosexuals, that there are no significant number of
people in this society who are on the fence and who are asking
themselves every day, gee, should I be a heterosexual or should I
be a homosexual ?
I personally think that homosexuals are, with very, very few
exceptions, a separate and discreet group of people. I do not
believe that the institution of marriage in any meaningful sense is
affected by this. I do not believe any children are going to be
corrupted by the fact that homosexuals are living together and call
themselves married, and therefore, I personally am voting against
this piece of legislation.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny County,
Mr. Pistella.
Mr. PISTELLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was wondering if the gentleman would stand for an
interrogation, please ?
The SPEAKER. Which gentleman ?
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Egolf - I am sony -the prime sponsor of
the amendment.
The SPEAKER. Mr. Egolf will stand for interrogation. You
may begin.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to follow the discussion of the
Supreme Court case that was made reference to by both of the
previous speakers in the interrogation, Romer v. Evans. My
question is this, Mr. Speaker: I am looking at your amendment,
which appears to do two things. First of all, it will define what a
marriage is, constituting a contract civilly between a man and a
woman. The second provision, however, deals with marriages
between persons of the same sex and whether or not those
2020 LEGISLATIVE
marriages that take place in other States will be honored here in
Pennsylvania. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. PISTELLA. Thank you.
Now, my question is this: I am not familiar with the language
of the Supreme Court case that you use upon which to draft this,
but I am wondering, the language of the Supreme Court case
would allow States to determine whether or not they would wish
to ban same-sex marriages. Is that accurate ?
Mr. EGOLF. My understanding is, there is no Supreme Court
case on that subject.
Mr. PISTELLA. I am sorry. Could you give me one moment,
please.
I am sorry. If you could please repeat the answer now.
I am sorry? Would you want me to repeat the question again ?
Mr. EGOLF. Yes, would you repeat the question. I did not hear
the last part.
Mr. PISTELLA. Yes.
The language contained in the Supreme Court decision, which
obviously is the basis that you are using to craft this particular
amendment, said what as it relates to what the States can do in
regard to same-sex marriages ? What is it that States can do ?
Mr. EGOLF. It says if it is repugnant to our public policy, then
we do not have to recognize it. Now, that is my- Excuse me, sir.
That is not a Supreme Court decision; that is our own
Pennsylvania Superior Court decision.
Mr. PISTELLA. Now, I am making reference to the case of
Romer v. Evans. Now, is Romer v. Evans a Pennsylvania
Supreme Court case or a U.S. Supreme Court case ?
Mr. EGOLF. My understanding is that Romer v. Evans was-
That was not on the case of same-sex marriages. That is the case
that took away the rights, was concerning taking away the rights
of homosexuals in Colorado.
Mr. PISTELLA. Which precipitated the recent Supreme Court
decision as to what basis States can use to determine what rights
will be granted or taken away from homosexuals. Is that-
Mr. EGOLF. I think the answer to that, what you are asking, is
that since this has not been a question until this point, there has not
been a case on same-sex marriages. So the Romer v. Evans was a
different case. That took away all rights of homosexuals. But there
has been no case on marriage, same-sex marriage.
Mr. PISTELLA. Okay. Let me ask the question this way, and
I am trying to work through.
My understanding is that the Supreme Court in the case of
Romer v. Evans has said that there is a certain standard which is
referred to as the "rational-basis standard that States must use in
determining if the laws that they are going to enact will have an
adverse effect on the rights of classes of people; in this case, the
class of people being homosexuals. The rational-basis test is there
has to be a rational relationship to the State's end that it wishes to
achieve when it enacts this act in taking certain rights away from
homosexual people. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. EGOLF. That is correct as far as I know. That is right.
Mr. PISTELLA. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Now, my next question is this: As it relates to the full faith and
credit act or the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of
the United States as it relates to this particular case, was there any
language in that decision that has an effect on the full faith and
credit clause of the Constitution in terms of what can
JOURNAL - HOUSE JUNE 28
Pennsylvanians do in recognizing or not recognizing those types
of same-sex marriages that take place in other States ?
Mr. EGOLF. This amendment was drawn up to satisfy both the
Romer v. Evans and the full faith and credit, the clause that says
we would have to recognize unless it is longstanding policy or
repugnant to our public policy. So it was drafted to fit both of
those requirements.
Mr. PISTELLA. But are both of those requirements addressed
in Romer v. Evans, or is there a separate case addressing the issue
of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution other than
Romer v. Evans ?
Mr. EGOLF. Commonwealth v. Custer in Pennsylvania.
Mr. PISTELLA. One moment, sir. Commonwealth v. Custer
is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, or is it a United States
'
Supreme Court decision ?
If the gentleman, Mr. Pistella, knows the answers to these
questions, then it is not a legitimate subject of interrogation, and
the hour is getting late.
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Speaker, if I may. The answer to the
question is, I do not know the answer. 1 realize the purpose of
interrogation is to elicit answers to questions to which we do not
know the answers. I do not, sir. I am not attempting to be
argumentative.
The SPEAKER. All right.
Mr. PISTELLA. I am simply suggesting, I do not know. The
gentleman is saying that this amendment has been drafted to
address two issues. Obviously the one that I am addressing now is
the issue of full faith and credit of the United States Constitution.
I can very simply make a motion it is unconstitutional precipitating
another vote; I would rather hear what the gentleman has to say.
It may be appropriate to divide thisamendment if it is proper,
Mr. Speaker, and have the members vote on it at that time. I am
not attempting to be obstructionist, but I think we do have a
responsibility, as you have pointed out on previous occasions,
Mr. Speaker, to our constituents, and that is what I am attempting
to do. I apologize if it takes a long time.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect.
The SPEAKER. Of course.
I am sony, sir. The question I had was, when crafting this, was
this to address the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution by
virtue of another U.S. Supreme Court case ?
Mr. EGOLF. No, it was not.
Mr. PISTELLA. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on that point, if I may, I would suggest that we
could have one of two options: either address the issue of
constitutionality of the question. I agree with what Mr. Egolf has
said about the language of the first portion of the amendment being
appropriate under the Supreme Court decision. I think he has
admitted, however, that the other language contained in here does
not meet Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's
full faith and credit clause and would suggest for the gentleman it
may be appropriate to either divide the amendment or to withdraw
it, have it redrafted and submit it so it is constitutional.
The SPEAKER. For the information of the gentleman, the
amendment is not divisible.
CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF ORDER
Mr. PISTELLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.
Then I would raise the question of constitutionality that the
latter portion of the Egolf amendment does not meet the
United States Constitution's full faith and credit clause.
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, may I respond to that? I do not
know if it is a question or not, but-
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is-
The SPEAKER. The gentlemen, both gentlemen, yield.
The gentleman, Mr. Pistella, raises the point of order that the
Egolf amendment A5425 is unconstitutional. The Speaker, under
rule 4, is required to submit questions affecting the
constitutionality of an amendment to the House for decision. The
Chair now does that.
On the question,
Will the House sustain the constitutionality of the
amendment ?
Mr. Egolf.
Mr. Egolf, did you seek recognition on this point?
Mr. EGOLF. Well, on the constitutionality, this was drafted to
be constitutional on all grounds.
The SPEAKER. Mr. Pistella is recognized.
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the
General Assembly have heard; I asked the question directly of the
prime sponsor if this in fact was drafted to meet the constitutional
standard of United States Supreme Court decisions addressing the
issue of the full faith and credit clause. Earlier in his presentation,
he said it was. When I asked him for the specific case, he
in fact said that it had not been. He did cite a Pennsylvania
Supreme Court case which I think, under the circumstances, would
not be appropriate.
I would suggest that under those circumstances, this
amendment that is being offered at this time is in fact
unconstitutional under the United States Constitution's full faith
and credit clause.
On the question before the House, those voting "aye" will vote
to declare the amendment to be constitutional; those voting "no"
will vote to declare the amendment to be unconstitutional. The
question is on the question of constitutionality.
amendment ?
The following roll call was recorded:
Adolph
Allen
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard
Barley
Fajt
Fargo
Feese
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Lucyk Saylor
Lynch Schroder
Maitland Schuler
Major Scrimenti
Markosek Semmel
Marsico Serafini
Masland Shaner
Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, L. I.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Comell
Corpora
COY
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Durham
Egolf
Fairchild
Bishop
Buxton
Cam
Cohen, M
Corrigan
Cowell
c u m
Dermody
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
~ P P O
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Jadlowiec
Jarolin
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Lloyd
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Me V
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pitts
Platts
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
Sather
NAY S-29
DeWeese Michlovic
Evans Myers
Itkin Oliver
James Pistella
Josephs Preston
Levdansky Ramos
Manderino Roebuck
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Staback
Stairs
Steil
Stem
Stish
Strittmatter
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Vitali
Walk0
Waugh
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
RY an,
Speaker
Steelman
Stetler
Sturla
Thomas
Veon
Washington
Williams
NOT VOTING-1
Kirkland
Farmer
EXCUSED-2
Mihalich
The majority having voted in the af f i at i ve, the question was
determined in the affirmative and the constitutionality of the
amendment was sustained.
The SPEAKER. On that question, the Chair recognizes the
gentleman, Mr. Gamble.
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE JUNE 28
Mr. GAMBLE. I rise to support this amendment. I never
thought in my 20 years that I would be voting on such an
amendment.
There has been a lot of talk this week on how I have voted on
several issues this week and previous weeks, and you can say what
you want about me but you cannot say that I am inconsistent,
because I am going to vote against Democratic leadership again by
voting for this amendment. And as usual, it is an embarrassment
to me to have somebody from this party stand up to take that
position on statewide television, and with leaders like that, you are
going to be voting on a lot of Republican budgets because you are
so out of touch with the people of this State.
Just to sum it up, I just thank God I am going back to Oakdale,
where men are men and women are women, and believe me, boys
and girls, there is one heck of a difference.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Thomas.
Mr. THOMAS. Can I move that those remarks be stricken fiom
the record ?
On this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the
amendment, and I oppose the amendment for the following
reasons.
Number one, the amendment is not right for review. This body
nor the courts, to the best of my knowledge, have been confronted
with the question of whether or not benefits andlor other
opportunities should be extended to same-sex marriages or
same-sex relationships, and until such time that this issue comes
before the General Assembly by way of a legislative proscription
or some other proscription, then I think it is premature to preclude
something that has not been put before this body for review.
Secondarily, on the question of the full faith and credit clause
of the United States -and if I am mistaken, then, please, someone
correct me -the issue came up before the courts in Hawaii. Under
the full faith and credit clause, there is no automatic application to
Pennsylvania. There are circumstances under which Pennsylvania
will have to consider whether or not to accept a ruling of the courts
in Hawaii, and until such time we are faced with a situation where
we have to accept a mandate or accept a proscription of another
State, then I think it is also premature to address this issue.
And last but not least, on the question of whether or not we
need to reaffirm the institution of marriage in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, I would just argue that the
institution of marriage is not under attack statutorily, regulatorily,
or by case law, and until such time that the institution of marriage
is under attack in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, then it is
equally premature for us to address this issue.
I think that it would be fundamentally wrong for me to offer a
iegisiative proscription for something iiid i suspect that the
speaker might do sometime in the future, because sometime in the
future, a series of circumstances can change the speaker's position
and thereby preclude or put the speaker in a position where he or
she might not want to engage in particular conduct.
So I think that we are stretching it a little bit much in trying to
offer a legislative proscription for something that has not even
occurred. The institution of marriage is sound and sits on solid
ground in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore, we
do not need to reaffirm that institution.
It is my understanding that Independence Blue Cross, just a
little while ago, created a situation where benefits could be
extended to same-sex relationships, and there are no laws in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that prevent Independence
Blue Cross or any other member of the private sector from
providing such benefits under those very select circumstances. So
we do not need to come up with a legislative proscription to stop
"
something that the private sector can do anytime that it wants.
And therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is probably time for
us to move on to other business and deal with this issue,
Mr. Speaker, when the time arises. But it is not yet right for
review, for us in this very august body, and so I rise in opposition,
and I ask that members from both sides of the aisle join me in that
opposition. Thank you.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Stem, from the county of
Blair.
Mr. STERN. Mr. Speaker, on the amendment, I would
like to read something: "In 1885, the Supreme Court" - we heard
about Supreme Court decisions here today - "In 1885, the
Supreme Court felt so strongly that marriage was to be protected
that it declared it as a requirement for admission of new states to
the Union. Any prospective state, the court said, had to have law
resting 'on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and
springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the
holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable
and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent
morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social
and political improvement.' "
REMARKS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Mr. STERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Egolf amendment, and for the sake of time and clarity, I would
like to submit my remarks for the record.
The SPEAKER. Very good.
The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. STERN submitted the following remarks for the
Legislative Journal:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Egolf amendment to SB 434. 1
believe that it is imperative that we in Pennsylvania should stand up for
traditional marriage for the benefit of families and children in the
Commonwealth and our future. What began in Hawaii from the
Commission on Sexual Orientation and their recommendation as a denial
of basic human rights under their Constitution by five unelected
individuals has spurred the debate on same-sex marriages.
The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution
would force Pennsyivania to recognize same-sex marriages in
Pennsylvania because of a liberal court ruling in Hawaii. Pennsylvania,
if need be, needs to reemphasize Pennsylvania's current policy that
marriage is a fundamental institution in a civil society between a man and
a woman. We should not allow a decision in another State that has been
determined by an appellate court to dictate what we must abide by here in
the Commonwealth. In this day and age, we hear much rhetoric and
discussion on family values. This is a vote about family values and
traditional beliefs, and we should all support the Egolf amendment.
Also, for the record, I would like to submit a statement by the Hawaii
Catholic Conference on the Report of the Commission on Sexual
Orientation and the law dated December 13, 1995:
LEGISLATIVE J(
On Pearl Harbor Day, 1995, the State of
Hawaii was attacked. This time the target was
not a military base, but the State itself. Five
unelected individuals, sitting on a commission,
decided that government should forcibly
redefine the institution of marriage.
No government on planet earth has done
this, and none should. The five individuals
think it would be a great idea. As citizens, as
neighbors, and as Catholics, we strongly
disagree.
Marriage between a man and a woman is
the fundamental institution of civil society. It is
the basis for healthy individuals, a peaceful
community, and responsible citizenship.
Government cannot simply "redefine" it. This
commission is directly attacking our most
crucial institution.
We are not fooled by the rhetoric of "civil
rights" and "equality." Hawaii is a very
tolerant State. The Catholic Church has
strongly supported civil rights. We are publicly
committed to a pluralistic society with liberty
and justice for all.
This commission, however, is up to
something very different. In the name of
"equality" for individuals, it seeks to redefine
marriage as an institution. This mixes apples
and oranges. Every individual is equal before
the law, and rightfully so. But marriage is not
a creation of the law; it precedes the law.
Religion, Catholic or otherwise, did not
create the institution of marriage. Nor did the
State. Neither can simply "redefine" marriage,
and both should be wise enough to know this.
Just as we have learned to respect the natural
ecology of our island State, we should respect
its social ecology as well.
What are the lessons of marriage which
have been given to us ? There are at least four.
First, children enter society through the union
of a man and a woman, not just a sperm and an
egg. This is obvious! A sperm bank is not the
equivalent of a real father. The people of
Hawaii know that our children are our future.
If children are not a "compelling interest" of
the State, what is ?
Second, a committed, faithful and lifelong
relationship between a woman and a man is the
best environment for children. Every child
deserves a stable home with her real mother
and father. Single parents can raise children
well through heroic efforts, yet they know,
perhaps better than anyone. that there is a
difference. We all know the results when stable
families begin to break down: disoriented
children, domestic violence, and increased
crime.
Third, a formal commitment between a
man and a woman encourages them to take
joint responsibility for their children and for
each other. Marriage is a formal commitment,
made in the presence of society. Because this
commitment is essential to our biological and
social future, it is preserved, protected, and
URNAL - HOUSE 2023
promoted by the law of the State. The law of
marriage connects sex, commitment, and
children. It holds parents responsible for
supporting and educating their children, both
within marriage and even if a marriage breaks
down. If the law redefines marriage and sends
a message that marriage has no relationship to
sex, commitment, or children, it will only add
to our current troubles, and undermine what
health still remains.
Fourth, these benefits to society are only
made possible and reach their greatest fruition
because of the obvious complementary natures
of a woman and a man. The relationship
between a man and a woman is special and
beneficial to both the individuals in the
relationship and to society as a whole. Man and
woman, equal yet different, complement one
another, and in marital love humanize and
civilize each other and society. No same-sex
relationship can mimic the genuine potential of
a relationship between a woman and a man.
Nor should society expect it to through
governmental fiat.
The Catholic Church does not believe that
the citizens of Hawaii must choose between
liberty, privacy, and equality. We have a
tradition of protecting individual liberties. We
respect the private choices of others, even if we
disagree with them. We treat each individual
with equal rights and dignity before the law. To
use these great traditions of our people to
attack the crucial institution of marriage is to
treat our people as a group of fools. To pretend
that same-sex relationships are on the same
level as the institution of marriage not only
goes against the facts, but also denigrates the
men and women who make their special
contribution to society through their marriages.
We know the difference between males
and females. We know the difference between
individuals and institutions. We know the
difference between friendships and marriages.
We know the difference between tolerance and
endorsement. We know the difference between
"broadening" and redefinition. No government
commission can change reality.
We call upon the legislature to reject this
report as a direct attack on the institution of
marriage. We call upon our fellow citizens,
including our Catholic brothers and sisters, to
make their voices heard in the halls of
government. And our voice must be clear: We
are not fooled by this report.
The Church did not define marriage, but it
will defend it. To our neighbors and public
off~cials, we say, "Give marriage the justice it
deserves. Do not redefine marriage. Respect
marriage!"
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes t he gentleman from
Warren County, Mr. Lynch, for the second t i me on t he issue.
Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I woul d like t o interrogate t he sponsor of t he amendment.
2024 LEGISLATIVE
The SPEAKER. You may begin.
Mr. LYNCH. I heard a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, and I want
to make sure we get this perfectly clear.
This amendment, fast off, does recognize that there is a
traditional marriage concept in Pennsylvania. Is that not true?
Mr. EGOLF. That is true.
Mr. LYNCH. Now, a prior speaker has indicated that we
should maybe do this when the time is right to do it. But is it not
a fact that other States, if they pass a law which is not in
accordance with the traditional marriage concept in Pennsylvania,
that that law could be carried over into our State and that
Pennsylvania would have to recognize that State's - that State's -
value of marriage ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is correct; it could, it could. The idea of this
is to clarify our policy here so that it will not be vague; it will be
very strong and help the courts, if it comes to a court case, to
establish that we have a strong law and a strong policy in place.
A brief comment on the amendment.
I think that we need to do this to continue to be able to enforce
fie traditional marriage concept in Pennsylvania, and I strongly
urge that we all vote in the affirmative on this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Chair recognizes the lady from Montgomery County,
Mrs. Cohen.
Mrs. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Egolf amendment.
VOTE CORRECTION
Mrs. COHEN. First, I must ask that the record be corrected.
My switch malfunctioned on the motion for constitutionality. As
an attorney, I certainly believe that this amendment is highly
unconstitutional.
What we are talking about, so many times here in this body, are
family values, love, togetherness, parents and children together.
What this amendment does is say to the world that we are against
families, parents with children. I believe that what this amendment
does is penalize children of such unions. They will not be entitled
to certain benefits that children of unions between a man and a
woman would be entitled to. The general message that this
amendment states is really one of bigotry and one of hatred. It has
nothing to do with whether or not we are in favor of same-sex
marriages.
I think it is interesting and I think that I am correct that in
Pennsylvania fust cousins are not allowed to many. If that is true
- and I think it is -just as a rhetorical question and not in the form
of interrogation of the maker of the amendment, but will
Pennsylvania's next step be to deny marriages between two first
cousins that occur in another State and therefore deny benefits to
the people, the man and the woman of such a union, and certainly
the children ?
I would really rather not deal with this amendment at all, but,
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we are sending a message not that
we are opposed to unions, to same-sex unions, but that I truly
believe this is a bigoted statement, this is a statement that is against
family values, is very much contrary to family values and to the
love and warmth and affection that we constantly espouse among
family members.
So therefore, I would urge my fellow Representatives to vote
"no" on this, and it is a message, by voting "no," that indeed we
are in favor of whole families.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Thomas, for the second
time.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Very quickly, just in response to the citing of an 1885 law that
was cited in terms of what the Supreme Court said.
Let us not forget that it was no more than 100 years ago that
the Supreme Court, in 1896, in the Dred Scott case, determined
that African-Americans were not whole people. Let us not forget
'
that it was less than 100 years ago that the Supreme Court, that
many courts determined that white and black should not be
married or that it would be against the law for interracial marriages
to take place.
So things have changed, they have changed, and we need not
go back to 1895 to determine whether or not this issue that is
before us, whether this issue is right for review at this particular
time. The issue is not right for review. We are not confronted with
the question of whether or not same-sex marriages should exist or
not exist in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, nor are we
confronted with the issue of whether or not the institution of
marriage is sacred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
We are not confronted with those questions, and therefore, I
urge members from both sides to vote "no7' on the Egolf
amendment, and let us move on. At some point maybe in the
future we will have an opportunity to deal with this question, but
it is not right for review right now.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Dr. King.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Several of the members have spoken out against this particular
issue, and I find disagreement in the sense that the marriage
tradition and the sanctity of our marriage is not under attack across
the land, and I agree with the sponsor of the amendment that we do
have a right to bring this issue to this body and at this time.
I think that we need to say to ourselves, if not now, when ? And
what are we trying to say ? Are we trying to say that because there
are scientific changes in the community, that there might be in
some fashion offspring of this union, that we are so to say to these
people that the sanctity of marriage as we understand it is to be
voided ?
I would say to you that it is time for us now to speak out for
those values that have brought us to this great Commonwealth
through the past, whether it has been a reinstatement of a court
case from the 1800's to this day, that today's values will be
tomorrow's future here in Pennsylvania.
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE
Adolph
Allen
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard
Barley
Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Comell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Durham
Egolf
Fairchild
Fajt
Fargo
Feese
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
Gruppo
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Jadlowiec
Jarolin
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Krebs
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Lloyd
Lucy k
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Mew
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pitts
Platts
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
Sather
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder,, D. W
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Waugh
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Zimmerman
zug
Ryan,
Speaker
Cam Evans Michlovic Roebuck
Cohen, L. I. ltkin Oliver Thomas
Cohen, M. Josephs Pistella Williams
c u m Manderino Preston Youngblood
NOT VOTING-8
DeWeese
James
Kirkland Myers Stetler
Kukovich Ramos Washington
Farmer Mihalich
The majority having voted in the affirmative, t he question was
determined in t he affirmative and t he amendment was agreed to.
On the question,
Will the House agree t o t he bill on third consideration as
amended ?
Mr. VEON offered the following amendment No. A5227:
Amend Title, page 1, line 2, by striking out "providing for"
Amend Title, page 1, line 3, by inserting after ''gwdpm~9'
further providing for definitions, for arrearages, for
contempt of the court order, for attachment of
income and for
and inserting
Section 1. The definition of "income" in section 4302 of Title 23
of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes is amended and the section is
amended by adding definitions to read:
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall
have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly
. .
irlstita-subdivisionmy- -
by the l aws-
exmkaf an- -
hv the P e n ~ l U k U @ ~
. . . . .
* * *
"Income." Includes compensation for services, including, but not
limited to, wages, salaries, fees, compensation in kind, commissions and
similar items; income derived from business; gains derived from dealings
in property; interest; rents; royalties; dividends; annuities; income from
life insurance and endowment contracts; all forms of retirement; pensions;
income from discharge of indebtedness; distributive share of partnership
gross income; income in respect of a decedent; income from an interest in
an estate or trust; military retirement benefits; railroad employment
retirement benefits; social security benefits; temporary and permanent
disability benefits; workmen's compensation and unemployment
compensation; or atherentitlmntstc_mme-)corLumpmmiw&
w i - .
* * *
Anvorganlzation- . . . .
- Y = -
&*-p
- J w s W a = - v
. .
JYmQmSi-
* * *
Section 2. Sections 4304, 4345, 4348(0) and 53 13 of Title 23 are
amended to read:
4 4304. Cooperation of Commonwealth agencies and-.
CaS_ Caap&odC---Upon request of the
Department of Public Welfare on behalf of a domestic relations section,
Commonwealth agencies shall provide information regarding [wages,
employer and address information for the purposes of carrying out this
chapter, unless such information must remain confidential pursuant to
other provisions of law.] apersanls i n c -
S~Ckll S!2-Jl~mheranddate~-
kkphonenumber o f p f l q p
. .
iskmwn hue. C i u n m m a e ~ ~
' accordance---- rr:mainx&Ymhhn M
nbtainedhy &domestic r e l ~ ~ this x c h c h L k
confidential andshallanlyhe u s e d ~ f ~ ~ ~
of child suppxtncde&-
(h) C C
. .
-
D%pmlenmfF!Yblic*
shallmyide- 1abnror-
i n m m e & @ h a n W w

EXHIBIT PX-36

1


DEB WHITEWOOD, et al. :
:
Plaintiffs, : Civil Action
: No. 13-1861-JEJ
v. :
:
MICHAEL WOLF, in his official capacity as:
Health, et al. :
:
Defendants. :

RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant Michael Wolf, in his official capacity as the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvanias Secretary of Health, and Defendant Dan Meuser, in his official
capacity as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias Secretary of Revenue
(hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants), hereby respond and object to
Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories directed to All Defendants (Interrogatories)
as follows.
2

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs designation of the Requests as
continuing, to the extent that this designation calls for supplementation of
Defendants responses beyond that which is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendants will supplement these responses in accordance with Rule
26(e) if and when appropriate.
2. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek documents
or information beyond that which is within the possession, custody, control or
knowledge of the Defendants.
3. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they request
documentation which is already in Plaintiffs possession or is equally available to
Plaintiffs as well as Defendants.
4. Defendants state that they are responding to these Requests to the best
of their present knowledge, information, belief and ability. Defendants
investigation and discovery is continuing, and as such, Defendants reserve the right
to amend or supplement their Responses based on the discovery of information not
currently known.
5. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek
documents and information that is protected by various privileges of
3

confidentiality, including the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product
doctrine. In setting forth their responses, Defendants do not waive, nor intend to
waive, the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege or
immunity.
6. Defendants submit these responses subject to, and without waiving or
intending to waive, but to the contrary, reserving and intending to reserve;
a. all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality,
privilege, and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of any of the
responses given herein;
b. the right to object to other discovery procedures or
request involving or concerning the subject matter of the admission herein
responded to; and
c. the right at any time to revise, correct, add to, or clarify
any of the responses set forth herein.

4

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1:

If you contend that 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 are constitutional,
produce all documents supporting your responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 of
Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories Directed to All Defendants.

Response:
1. The relevant standard of constitutional review is the rational-
to uphold the law.
2. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
3. This request as overly burdensome and seeking publicly available
information that is equally accessible to Plaintiffs.
4. This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of relevant or admissible evidence.
5. This request calls for attorney-work product, attorney-client
privilege and confidential attorney-client communications.
5

Subject to and without waiving any objections, Defendants contend that
23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704, enacted by the General Assembly are
constitutional. Both sections were enacted on October 16, 1996, P.L. 706, No.
124. It is presumed in construing statutes that the legislature did not intend to
violate the State or Federal constitution. There are no documents specifically
relating to the constitutionality of these provisions. However, case law
supports the contention that these provisions are constitutional. I n re Absentee
Ballots Case (No.1), 431 Pa. 165 (Pa. 1968).
In considering whether a statute offends against the Constitution, the
courts look at it through historical as well as analytical eyes. "Where a statute
has been in force for many years without any question as to its
constitutionality being raised and engagements have been entered into on the
strength of its validity, the court will not undertake the drastic measure of
wiping it off the statute books unless it is convinced beyond all peradventure
of doubt that it violates a provision of the fundamental law." Wilson v.
Philadelphia School District, 328 Pa. 225, 242 (1937). The history of the
Marriage statutes reveals that at no time prior to this litigation did anyone or
any court question the constitutionality of the law.
6

There are many cases which detail the presumption that statutes are
presumed to be constitutional, and Defendants rely on all of these cases to
support the contention that 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 are constitutional.
Investigation is continuing and this response may be supplemented.
If you contend that 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 advance a state interest
related to protecting the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or its taxpayers from
adverse economic impacts, produce all documents showing or tending to show
what economic impacts the Commonwealth and/or its taxpayers would experience,
both positive and negative, if same-sex couples were permitted to marry and/or
have their marriages recognized in Pennsylvania.

Response:
to uphold the law.
7

of relevant or admissible evidence. This request calls for attorney-work
product, attorney-client privilege and confidential attorney-client
communications.
Defendants have no duty to produce evidence to sustain the rationality
of a statutory classification. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993)(quotation
omitted). Moreover, statutes such as the Marriage statutes are legislative
choicesnot subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational
speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data. F.C.C. v. Beach
Communications, I nc. 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993).
(attached hereto) suggests that the General Assembly saw cause for concern
that redefining marriage will bring about adverse economic consequences.
Investigation is continuing and this response may be supplemented
accordingly.
If you contend that 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 advance a state interest related
to protecting Pennsylvania businesses, produce all documents showing or tending
8

to show what economic impacts businesses in Pennsylvania would experience,
both positive and negative, if same-sex couples were permitted to marry and/or
have their marriages recognized in Pennsylvania.
Response:
to uphold the law.
of relevant or admissible evidence. This request calls for attorney-work
product, attorney-client privilege and confidential attorney-client
communications.
9

(attached hereto) suggests that the General Assembly believed that there is
reasonable cause for concern that redefining marriage will detrimentally
affect Pennsylvania businesses. Investigation is continuing and this response
may be supplemented accordingly.
If you contend that 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 advance a state interest
related to protecting or promoting the well-being of children or families in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, produce all documents showing or tending to
show how the prohibition of marriage by same-sex couples and/or the prohibition
on the recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples in Pennsylvania protects
or promotes, or harms or injures, the interests of any children or families in
Pennsylvania.
Response:
10

to uphold the law.
4. This request is needlessly duplicative, cumulative and redundant
and seeks to elicit repetitive information through multiple requests.
5. This is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant or admissible evidence.
11

Subject to and without waiving these objections, and as previously
stated in response to Request No. 1, the legislative history (attached hereto)
suggests that the General Assembly believed that the Marriage statutes
protect or promote the well-being of children or families in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Investigation is continuing and this response
may be supplemented accordingly.

If you contend that 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 advance a state interest related
to protecting or promoting the well-being of children or families in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, produce all documents showing or tending to
show how allowing marriage by same-sex couples and/or the recognition of the
marriages of same-sex couples in Pennsylvania would harm or injure the interests
of any children or families in Pennsylvania.

Response:
12

3. This request is needlessly duplicative, cumulative and redundant
and seeks to elicit repetitive information through multiple requests.
of relevant or admissible evidence.
(attached hereto) suggests that the General Assembly believed that the
Marriage statutes protect or promote the well-being of children or families in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Investigation is continuing and this
response may be supplemented accordingly.
13

Produce all documents concerning the policies or practices of Your Office and/or
the Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund (PEBTF) in providing domestic
partnership benefits to employees of the Commonwealth with same-sex partners,
including without limitation, all studies, reports, memoranda and communications
evaluating the financial cost or anticipated cost to the Commonwealth and/or
PEBTF of providing such benefits (see, e.g., Jen Colletta,
Breaking News: Pa. grants domestic partner benefits, Philadelphia Gay News,
available at http://www.epgn.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Breaking+News-
+Pa-+grants+domestic-partner+benefits%20&id=2559458), all studies, reports,
memoranda and communications regarding why Pennsylvania and/or the PEBTF
decided to begin providing such benefits despite a prior policy or practice of not
doing so, and all documents received by the Commonwealth from the PEBTF or
members of the PEBTF Board of Trustees regarding such policies and practices.

Response:
1. This request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
14

2. This request is overly burdensome and seeking publicly available
Subject to and without waiving these objections, according to its website
at https://www.pebtf.org, the Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund
(PEBTF), established in 1988, administers health care benefits to
approximately 77,000 eligible Commonwealth of Pennsylvania employees and
their dependents and 63,000 retirees and their dependents, as well as
additional employer groups. The PEBTF is governed by a Board of Trustees
comprised of both Commonwealth and Union Representatives. The PEBTF
was established under the authority of the Agreement and Declaration of
Trust dated September 9, 1988 between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) Council 13, AFL-CIO. The PEBTF Board of Trustees have full
and complete discretion and authority over all plan provisions, including their
interpretation and application. The Trust Agreement specifies that the entire
responsibility for operating, administering, developing and implementing the
medical program is vested in 14 Trustees. The Trustees are designated
equally by the unions and the Secretary of Administration and it is the
Trustees solely who select all vendors and authorize all contract. The
15

Commonwealth has no decision-making authority regarding these contracts,
and the contracts are not entered into on behalf of the Commonwealth.
PEBTF initially extended to some state employees family and sick leave
to care for domestic partner and their children, effective July 1, 2003. The
benefits came as part of a four-year collective bargaining agreement between
the Commonwealth and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
and its affiliate locals. Other unions, including the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) did not bargain for the
benefit and therefore did not receive it. The covered employees may take sick
time to care for domestic partners or children who are ill, as well as
bereavement time when a domestic partner or a member of their domestic
partners family died. Such workers may also take up to 12 weeks of unpaid
family leave to care for their domestic partner. PEBTF has since modified and
amended language related to domestic partnership benefits. Defendants are
not involved in nor consulted about such changes. Subject to the foregoing,
see documents produced herewith as Exhibit 1.
16

Produce all documents concerning the policies and practices of Your Office and/or
the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and/or any Pennsylvania county
Children &Youth agencies in placing or allowing county agencies to place children
and youth for adoption or in foster care with lesbian or gay individuals or same-sex
couples, including without limitation documents sufficient to show all criteria used
by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare or required of or recommended
to any Pennsylvania county Children &Youth agencies to consider when making
an adoption or foster-care placement decision; all documents identifying any
special criteria to be considered before making placements with lesbian and gay
individuals and couples that do not apply for placements with heterosexual
individuals and couples; and documents sufficient to show whether Pennsylvania
requires that the sexual orientation of prospective foster or adoptive parents be
ascertained during the application or home study process.

Response:
17

2. This request is overly burdensome and seeking publicly available
Subject to the foregoing, the Department of Public Welfare does not
have in its possession any documents referring or relating to specific policies
or practices in placing children for adoption or foster care with lesbian or gay
individuals or same-sex couples. The Department of Public Welfare does not
have in its possession any documents referring or relating to specific policies
or practices of any Pennsylvania county children & youth agency in placing or
allowing county agencies to place children for adoption or foster care with
lesbian or gay individuals or same-sex couples.
DPW does not have data on private adoptions. Any data comes from
the PA Adoption Exchange, www.adoptpakids.com, those who register on the
Pa Adoption Exchange can self-identify as married, single, living an
alternative lifestyle, or other. Marital status is not a deciding factor in
placements but it only used as a tool to make a good match between child and
prospective family. As of September 2013, there were 8738 active
applications, of which 126 self-identified as alternative lifestyle. There were
also 142 closed records that had self-identified as alternative lifestyle. Of
those 142, 32 were closed due to an adoption. Subject to the foregoing, see
documents attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
18

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8
Produce all documents containing data or analyses of data regarding reports,
prosecutions and/or convictions of hate crimes committed against individuals in
Pennsylvania on the basis of their sexual orientation on or since January 1, 2003.

Response:
1. This request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
Defendants do not have any documents in their custody, control or
possession containing data or analysis of data regarding reports, prosecutions
and/or convictions of hate crimes committed against in individuals in
Pennsylvania on the basis of their sexual orientation on or since January 1,
2003. To the best of the Defendants information and belief, such documents,
if any, would reside with either the Office of the Attorney General, PSP or
county district attorneys.
19

Although Defendants object to this request as it is directed to third
parties who are not defendants in this action, nevertheless, notwithstanding or
waiving these objections and the fact that they have no obligation to do so, the
Defendants have made reasonable efforts to obtain publicly available records
from the Pennsylvania State Police that may be responsive to this request that
can be produced without implicating the Criminal History Records
Information Act. See documents attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9
Produce all communications since June 26, 2013 within the Office of the
Governor, or between or among the Office of the Governor on the one hand and
any other Commonwealth Office or county or local government office in
Pennsylvania, including without limitation, any offices of the Clerk of Orphans'
Court or Register of Wills, on the other hand, relating to the enforcement or
application of 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704. To be clear, this Request includes
without limitation all communications concerning any decisions of, preferences of,
or approval granted by, the Office of the Governor regarding whether, how or in
what manner the Office of the Governor or any other Commonwealth Office or
county or local government office in Pennsylvania should enforce or apply 23 Pa.
C.S. 1102 and/or 1704, such as any statements concerning whether the
20

Secretary of Health or any other representative of any Commonwealth Office
should file suit against D. Bruce Hanes, Montgomery County Register of
Wills/Clerk of Orphans' Court to enjoin him and his office from issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.

Response:
Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendants state that
there are no documents not otherwise privileged that relate to the
enforcement or application or 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704. There are no
communications concerning any decisions of, preferences of, or approval
granted by, the Office of the Governor regarding whether, how or in what
manner the Office of the Governor or any other Commonwealth Office or
county or local government office in Pennsylvania should enforce or apply 23
Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704, such as any statements concerning whether the
21

Secretary of Health, Secretary of Revenue or any other representative of any
Commonwealth Office should file suit against D. Bruce Hanes, Montgomery
County Register of Wills/Clerk of Orphans' Court to enjoin him and his office
from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Date: 12/16/13 By: /s/ William H. Lamb
William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
LAMB MCERLANE PC
(610) 430-8000

Counsel for Defendants Secretary of Health
Michael Wolf and Secretary of Revenue Dan
Meuser


EXHIBIT PX-37



DEB WHITEWOOD, et al., :
:
: No. 13-1861-JEJ
v. :
:
Health, et al., :
:
Defendants. :

RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS WOLF AND MEUSER TO PLAINTIFFS
SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Michael
Wolf, in his official capacity as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias Secretary of Health, and
Defendant Dan Meuser, in his official capacity as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias
Secretary of Revenue (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants), hereby respond and
object to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories directed to All Defendants (Interrogatories)
as follows.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs designation of the Interrogatories as
continuing, to the extent that this designation calls for supplementation of Defendants
responses beyond that which is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants
will supplement the responses in accordance with Rule 26(e) if and when appropriate.

2. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek documents or
information beyond that which is within the possession, custody, control or knowledge of the
Defendants.
3. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request
information or documentation that is already in Plaintiffs possession, is equally available to
Plaintiffs as well as Defendants, or that may be derived or ascertained from Plaintiffs own
knowledge.
4. Defendants state that they are responding to Interrogatories to the best of their
current knowledge, information, belief and ability. Defendants investigation and discovery is
continuing, and they reserve the right to amend, modify or strike any of their answers to
Interrogatories based on the discovery of information not currently known to them.
5. Defendants object to Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that
is protected by various privileges of confidentiality, including the attorney-client privilege and
attorney work product doctrine. In setting forth their responses, Defendants do not waive, nor
do they intend to waive, the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine protections, or
other privilege or immunity.
6. Defendants submit these responses subject to, and without waiving or intending
to waive, but rather reserving and intending to reserve:
a. all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, and
admissibility as evidence for any purpose of any of the responses given herein;
b. the right to object to other discovery procedures or requests involving or
concerning the subject matter of the admission herein responded to; and

c. the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement, or clarify any of the
responses set forth herein.
7. Defendants object to the Interrogatories to the extent that their purpose is to
require Defendants to set forth conclusions of law to ultimate issues in this proceeding and/or
an application of law to the facts as presently known.
INTERROGATORIES
To the extent not already produced by You in this action, identify all documents,
including without limitation all studies, reports, treatises, memoranda and communications,
that in any way show or tend to show that 23 Pa. C.S. 1102 and/or 1704 are
constitutional.

Response:
1. The relevant standard of constitutional review is the rational-basis test, and
any conceivable rational basis or legitimate interest is sufficient to uphold the law.
2. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not reasonably specific.
4. This request calls for attorney-work product, attorney-client privilege and
confidential attorney-client communications.

5. This interrogatory is needlessly duplicative, cumulative and redundant and
seeks to elicit repetitive information through multiple interrogatories.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, see Defendants response to
Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents.

that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including without limitation the Office of the
Governor and the General Assembly, relied upon in enacting 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or 1704.
Response:

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information not
reasonably available to Defendants.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, after reasonable investigation,
Defendants do not have knowledge or information reasonably available to them regarding
the facts, documents, treatises, memoranda and communications upon which the Office of
the Governor or the General Assembly might have relied when 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and
1704 were enacted in 1996. Reference is made to the Legislative Journal pages relating to

the 1996 enactment, which was previously produced in response to Plaintiffs First
Request for Production of Documents.

including without limitation to all studies, reports, treatises, memoranda and communications,
that in any way show or tend to show that lesbian and gay individuals and couples are not
members of a suspect or quasi-suspect class.
Response:

Identify all witnesses whose testimony or statements You may present at trial and the

substance of their testimony or their statements.

Response:

Defendants object to this interrogatory as premature. Defendants will identify all

witnesses to be presented at trial in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the courts scheduling order.

Identify all documents and exhibits You may or will seek to introduce or refer
to at trial, including without limitation, all studies, reports, treatises, memoranda
and communications.
Response:

Defendants object to this request as it is premature. Defendants will identify
all exhibits to be introduced at trial in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Procedure and the Courts scheduling order.

Date: February 26, 2014 William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
LAMB MCERLANE PC
(610) 430-8000

Counsel for Defendants Secretary
of Health Michael Wolf and
Secretary of Revenue Dan Meuser

This is to certify that in this case complete copies of all papers contained in Defendants
Response to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories have been served upon the following
persons electronically on February 26, 2014:
th
Floor

th
Floor
New York, NY 10004

P.O. Box 40008

313 Atwood Street


Langhorne, PA 19047


BALLARD SPAHR LLP
st
Floor

Date: February 26, 2014 By: s/ William H. Lamb
William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
LAMB MCERLANE PC
(610) 430-8000

Counsel for Defendants Secretary of
Health Michael Wolf and Secretary
of Revenue Dan Meuser

EXHIBIT PX-38



DEB WHITEWOOD, et al., :
:
: No. 13-1861-JEJ
v. :
:
Health, et al., :
:
Defendants. :

RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS WOLF AND MEUSER TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Michael
Wolf, in his official capacity as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias Secretary of Health, and
Defendant Dan Meuser, in his official capacity as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias
Secretary of Revenue (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants), hereby respond and
object to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents directed to
Defendants (Requests) as follows.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Defendants object to Plaintiffs designation of the Requests as continuing, to
the extent that this designation calls for supplementation of Defendants responses beyond that
which is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants will supplement these
responses in accordance with Rule 26(e) if and when appropriate.
2

2. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek documents or
information beyond that which is within the possession, custody, control or knowledge of
Defendants.
3. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they request documentation
which is already in Plaintiffs possession or is equally available to Plaintiffs as well as
Defendants.
4. Defendants state that they are responding to these Requests to the best of their
present knowledge, information, belief and ability. Defendants investigation and discovery is
continuing; consequently, Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement their Responses
based on the discovery of information not currently known.
5. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek documents and
information that is protected by various privileges of confidentiality, including the attorney-
client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. In setting forth their responses, Defendants
do not waive, nor do they intend to waive, the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine
or other privilege or immunity.
6. Defendants submit these responses subject to, and without waiving or intending
to waive, but to the contrary reserving and intending to reserve:
a. all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege,
and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of any of the responses given herein;
b. the right to object to other discovery procedures or request
involving or concerning the subject matter of the admission herein responded to; and
3

c. the right at any time to revise, correct, add to, or clarify any of the
responses set forth herein.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Produce all documents accessed or reviewed by Your Office, or others at the

direction of Your Office, regarding any or all of the Plaintiffs for any reason related to this
action. By way of example only, this Request demands all tax records, adoption records,
marital records, licensing records, employment records, criminal history reports,
communications and all summaries of the foregoing, whether accessed or reviewed
directly or indirectly by Your Office, provided that such documents were accessed for
reasons related to this action.
Response:


1. This request seeks publicly available information that is equally accessible
to Plaintiffs.
Subject to and without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs are in possession of the
requested documents.

4


To the extent not produced already by You in this action, produce all documents,
including without limitation all studies, reports, treatises, memoranda and
communications that in any way show or tend to show that 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or
1704 are constitutional.

Response:

1. The relevant standard of constitutional review is the rational-basis test, and
any conceivable rational basis or legitimate interest is sufficient to uphold the law.
5. This request is needlessly duplicative, cumulative and redundant and seeks
to elicit repetitive information through multiple requests.

5


To the extent not already produced by You in this action, produce all documents,
that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including without limitation the Office of the
Governor and the General Assembly, relied upon in enacting 23 Pa.C.S. 1102 and/or
1704.
Response:

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information not
reasonably available to Defendants.
Subject to and without waiving these objections, after reasonable investigation,
Defendants do not have knowledge or information reasonably available to them
regarding any facts, documents, treatises, memoranda or communications upon which
the Office of the Governor or the General Assembly might have relied when 23 Pa.C.S.
1102 and 1704 were enacted in 1996. Reference is made to the Legislative Journal
pages relating to the 1996 enactment, which was previously produced in response to
6

To the extent not already produced by You in this action, produce all documents,
that in any way show or tend to show that lesbian and gay individuals and couples are not
members of a suspect or quasi-suspect class.
Response:

To the extent not already produced by You in this action, produce all documents
identified in Your Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures.
Response:
Defendants object to this request as it is needlessly duplicative, cumulative and
redundant and seeks to elicit repetitive information through multiple requests. Subject to
and without waiving these objections, all such documents have been produced.
7


To the extent not already produced by You in this action, produce all documents
identified in response to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories Directed to All Defendants
and Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories Directed to Defendants Secretary Dan Meuser
and Secretary Michael Wolf.
Response:
Defendants object to this request as it is needlessly duplicative, cumulative and
redundant and seeks to elicit repetitive information through multiple requests. Subject to
and without waiving these objections, all such documents have been produced.

8


To the extent not already produced by You in this action, produce all
documents and exhibits You may or will seek to introduce or refer to at trial,
including without limitation, all studies, reports, treatises, memoranda and
communications.
Response:
Defendants object to this request as it is premature. Defendants will produce
all exhibits to be introduced at trial in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Procedure and the Courts scheduling order.

Date: February 26, 2014 William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
LAMB MCERLANE PC
(610) 430-8000

Counsel for Defendants Secretary
of Health Michael Wolf and
Secretary of Revenue Dan Meuser


This is to certify that in this case complete copies of all papers contained in Defendants
Response to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories have been served upon the following persons
electronically on February 26, 2014:
th
Floor

th
Floor
New York, NY 10004

P.O. Box 40008

313 Atwood Street


Langhorne, PA 19047


BALLARD SPAHR LLP
st
Floor

Date: February 26, 2014 By: /s/ William H. Lamb
William H. Lamb
Joel L. Frank
LAMB MCERLANE PC
(610) 430-8000

Counsel for Defendants Secretary of
Health Michael Wolf and Secretary of
Revenue Dan Meuser


EXHIBIT PX-39

AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena t o Produce Document s, I nf ormat i on, or Obj ect s or t o Permi t I nspect i on of Premi ses i n a C i vi l Act i on.
UNI TED STATES DI STRI C T C OURT
f or t h e
Wh i t ewood, et al .
Pl ai nt i f f
v.
Wol f , et al .
Def endant
Mi ddl e Di st ri ct of Pennsy l vani a
C i vi l Act i on No. 13-1861.-JEJ
(I f t h e act i on i s pendi ng i n anot h er di st ri ct , st at e wh ere:
SUBPOENA TO PRODUC E DOC UMENTS, I NFORMATI ON, OR OBJEC TS
OR TO PERMI T I NSPEC TI ON OF PREMI SES I N A C I VI L AC TI ON
To: C ust odi an of Records, Pennsy l vani a Depart ment of Publ i c Wel f are, H eal t h and Wel f are Bui l di ng, Room 234,
H arri sburg, PA.1 71 1 1-5700
Product i on: YOU ARE C OMMANDED t o produce at t h e t i me, dat e, and pl ace set f ort h bel ow t h e f ol l owi ng
document s, el ect roni cal l y st ored i nf ormat i on, or obj ect s, and permi t t h ei r i nspect i on, copy i ng, t est i ng, or sampl i ng of t h e
mat eri al : See at t ach ed Ex h i bi t A
Pl ace:
H angl ey Aronch i ck Segal Pudl i n & Sch i l l er, One Logan
Dat e and Ti me:
Square, 27t h Fl oor, Ph i l adel ph i a, Pennsy l vani a 19103
12/16/2013 5:00 pm
~ I nspect i on of Premi ses: YOU ARE C OMMANDED t o permi t ent ry ont o t h e desi gnat ed premi ses, l and, or
ot h er propert y possessed or cont rol l ed by y ou at t h e t i me, dat e, and_ l ocat i on set f ort h bel ow, so t h at t h e request i ng part y
may i nspect , measure, survey , ph ot ograph , t est , or sampl e t h e propert y or any desi gnat ed obj ect or operat i on on i t .
Pl ace: Dat e and Ti me:
Th e provi si ons of Fed. R. C i v. P. 45(c), rel at i ng t o y our prot ect i on as a person subj ect t o a subpoena, and Rul e
45 (d) and (e), rel at i ng t o y our dut y t o respond t o t h i s subpoena and t h e pot ent i al consequences of not doi ng so, are
at t ach ed.
Dat e:
11 /25/2013
C LERK OF C OURT
Si gnat ure of C l erk or Deput y C l erk
OR ~ / ~ -
At t orney 's st t ure
Th e name, address, e-mai l , and t el eph one number of t h e at t orney represent i ng (name of parry ) Pl ai nt i f f s Deb and Susan
Wh i t ewood, et al . ,wh o i ssues or request s t h i s subpoena, are:
Joh n S. St apl et on, H angl ey Aronch i ck Segal Pudl i n & Sch i l l er; One Logan Square, 27t h Fl oor, Ph i l adel ph i a; PA 19103;
j st apl et on@h angl ey .com; (215) 496-7048
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena t o Produce Document s, I nf ormat i on, or Obj ect s or t o Permi t I nspect i on of Premi ses i n a C i vi l Act i on (Page 2)
C i vi l Act i on No. 13-1861 -JEJ
PROOF OF SERVI C E
(Thi s sect i on shoul d not be f i l ed w i t h t he court unl ess requi red by Fed. R. C i u P. 45.)
Thl s subpoena f or (name of i ndi vi dual and t i t l e, f any)
C ust odi an of Records, Depart ment of Publ i c Wel f are
w as recei ved by me on (dat e)
~ I served t he subpoena by del i veri ng a copy t o t he named person as f ol l ow s:
on (dare) ; or
Q I ret urned t he subpoena unexecut ed because:
Unl ess t he subpoena w as i ssued on behal f of t he Uni t ed St at es, or one of i t s of f i cers or agent s, I have al so
t endered t o t he w i t ness f ees f or one day's at t endance, and t he mi l eage al l ow ed by l aw , i n t he amount of
My f ees are $ f or t ravel and $ f or servi ces, f or a t ot al of $
I decl are under penal t y of perj ury t hat t hi s i nf ormat i on i s t rue.
Dat e:
Server's si gnat ure
Pri nt ed name and t i t l e
Server's address
Addi t i onal i nf ormat i on regardi ng at t empt ed servi ce, et c:
0.00
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena t o Produce Document s, I nf ormat i on, or Obj ect s or t o Permi t I nspect i on of Premi ses i n a C i vi l Act i on(Pag e 3)
Federal Rul e of C i vi l Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (E f f ect i ve 1 2 /1 /07 )
(c) Prot ect i ng a Person Subj ect t o a Subpoena.
(1 ) Avoi di ng Undue Burden or E xpense; Sanct i ons. A part y or
at t orney responsi bl e f or i ssui ng and servi ng a subpoena must t ak e
reasonabl e st eps t o avoi d i mposi ng undue burden or expense on a
person subj ect t o t h e subpoena. Th e i ssui ng court must enf orce t h i s
dut y and i mpose an appropri at e sanct i on wh i ch may i ncl ude l ost
earni ng s and reasonabl e at t orney ' s f ees on a part y or at t orney
wh o f ai l s t o compl y .
(2 ) C ommand t o Produce M at eri al s or Permi t I nspect i on.
(A) Appearance Not Req ui red. A person commanded t o produce
document s, el ect roni cal l y st ored i nf ormat i on, or t ang i bl e t h i ng s, or
t o permi t t h e i nspect i on of premi ses, need not appear i n person at t h e
pl ace of product i on or i nspect i on unl ess al so commanded t o appear
f or a deposi t i on, h eari ng , or t ri al ..
(B) Obj ect i ons. A person commanded t o produce document s or
t ang i bl e t h i ng s or t o permi t i nspect i on may serve on t h e part y or
at t orney desi g nat ed i n t h e subpoena a wri t t en obj ect i on t o
i nspect i ng , copy i ng , t est i ng or sampl i ng any or al l of t h e mat eri al s or
t o i nspect i ng t h e premi ses or t o produci ng el ect roni cal l y st ored
i nf ormat i on i n t h e f orm or f orms req uest ed. Th e obj ect i on must be
served bef ore t h e earl i er of t h e t i me speci f i ed f or compl i ance or 1 4
day s af t er t h e subpoena i s served. I f an obj ect i on i s made, t h e
f ol l owi ng rul es appl y :
(i ) At any t i me, on not i ce t o t h e commanded person, t h e servi ng
part y may .-move t h e i ssui ng court f or an order compel l i ng product i on
or i nspect i on.
(i i ) Th ese act s may be req ui red onl y as di rect ed i n t h e order, and
t h e order must prot ect a person wh o i s nei t h er a part y nor a part y ' s
of f i cer f rom si g ni f i cant expense resul t i ng f rom compl i ance.
(3) Quash i ng or M odi f y i ng a Subpoena.
(A) Wh en Req ui red. On t i mel y mot i on, t h e i ssui ng court must
q uash or modi f y a subpoena t h at :
(i ) f ai l s t o al l ow a reasonabl e t i me t o compl y ;
(i i ) req ui res a person wh o i s nei t h er a part y nor a part y ' s of f i cer
t o t ravel more t h an 1 00 mi l es f rom wh ere t h at person resi des, i s
empl oy ed, or reg ul arl y t ransact s busi ness i n person except t h at ,
subj ect t o Rul e 45(c)(3)(B)(i i i ), t h e person may be commanded t o
at t end a t ri al by t ravel i ng f rom any such pl ace wi t h i n t h e st at e wh ere
t h e t ri al i s h el d;
(i i i ) req ui res di scl osure of pri vi l eg ed or ot h er prot ect ed mat t er, i f
no except i on or wai ver appl i es; or
(i v) subj ect s a person t o undue burden.
(B) Wh en Permi t t ed. To prot ect a person subj ect t o or af f ect ed by
a subpoena, t h e i ssui ng court may , on mot i on, q uash or modi f y t h e
subpoena i f i t req ui res:
(i ) di scl osi ng a t rade secret or ot h er conf i dent i al research ,
devel opment , or commerci al i nf ormat i on;
(i i ) di scl osi ng an unret ai ned expert ' s opi ni on or i nf ormat i on t h at
does not descri be speci f i c occurrences i n di sput e and resul t s f rom
t h e expert ' s st udy t h at was not req uest ed by a part y ; or
(i i i ) a person wh o i s nei t h er a part y nor a part y ' s of f i cer t o i ncur
subst ant i al expense t o t ravel more t h an 1 00 mi l es t o at t end t ri al .
(C ) Speci f y i ng C ondi t i ons as an Al t ernat i ve. I n t h e ci rcumst ances
descri bed i n Rul e 45(c)(3)(B), t h e court may , i nst ead of q uash i ng or
modi f y i ng a subpoena, order appearance or product i on under
speci f i ed condi t i ons i f t h e servi ng part y :
(i ) sh ows a subst ant i al need f or t h e t est i mony or mat eri al t h at
cannot be ot h erwi se met wi t h out undue h az dsh i p; and
(i i ) ensures t h at t h e subpoenaed person wi l l be reasonabl y
compensat ed.
(d) Dut i es i n Respondi ng t o a Subpoena.
(1 ) Produci ng Document s or E l ect roni cal l y St ored I nf ormat i on.
Th ese procedures appl y t o produci ng document s or el ect roni cal l y
st ored i nf ormat i on:
(A) Document s. A person respondi ng t o a subpoena t o produce
document s must produce t h em as t h ey are k ept i n t h e ordi nary -
course of busi ness or must org ani z e and l abel t h em t o correspond t o
t h e cat eg ori es i n t h e demand.
(B) Form f or Produci ng E l ect roni cal l y St ored I nf ormat i on Not
Speci f i ed. I f a subpoena does not speci f y a f orm f or produci ng
el ect roni cal l y st ored i nf ormat i on, t h e person respondi ng must
produce i t i n a f orm or f orms i n wh i ch i t i s ordi nari l y mai nt ai ned or
i n a reasonabl y usabl e f orm or f orms.
(C ) E l ect roni cal l y St ored I nf ormat i on Produced i n Onl y One
Form. Th e person respondi ng -need not produce t h e same-
el ect roni cal l y st ored i nf ormat i on i n more t h an one f orm.
(D) I naccessi bl e E l ect roni cal l y St ored I nf ormat i on. Th e person
respondi ng need not provi de di scovery of el ect roni cal l y st ored
i nf ormat i on f rom sources t h at t h e person i dent i f i es as not reasonabl y
accessi bl e because of undue burden or cost . On mot i on t o compel
di scovery or f or a prot ect i ve order, t h e person respondi ng must sh ow
t h at t h e i nf ormat i on i s not reasonabl y accessi bl e because of undue
burden or cost . I f t h at sh owi ng i s made, t h e court may nonet h el ess
order di scovery f rom such sources i f t h e req uest i ng part y -sh ows
g ood cause, consi deri ng t h e l i mi t at i ons of Rul e 2 6(b)(2 )(C ). Th e
court may speci f y condi t i ons f or t h e di scovery .
(2 ) C l ai mi ng Pri vi l eg e or Prot ect i on.
(A) I nf ormat i on Wi t h h el d. A person wi t h h ol di ng subpoenaed
i nf ormat i on under a cl ai m t h at i t i s pri vi l eg ed or subj ect t o
prot ect i on ast ri al -preparat i on mat eri al must :
(i ) expressl y mak e t h e cl ai m; and
(i i ) descri be t h e nat ure of t h e wi t h h el d document s,
communi cat i ons, or t ang i bl e t h i ng s i n a manner t h at , wi t h out
reveal i ng i nf ormat i on i t sel f pri vi l eg ed or prot ect ed, wi l l enabl e t h e
part i es t o assess t h e cl ai m. .
(B) I nf ormat i on Produced. I f i nf ormat i on produced i n response t o a
subpoena i s subj ect t o a cl ai m of pri vi l eg e or of prot ect i on as t ri al -
preparat i on mat eri al , t h e person mak i ng t h e cl ai m may not i f y any
part y t h at recei ved t h e i nf ormat i on of t h e cl ai m and t h e basi s f or i t .
Af t er bei ng not i f i ed, a part y must prompt l y ret urn, seq uest er, or
dest roy t h e speci f i ed i nf ormat i on and any copi es i t h as; must not use
or di scl ose t h e i nf ormat i on unt i l t h e cl ai m i s resol ved; must t ak e
reasonabl e st eps t o ret ri eve t h e i nf ormat i on i f t h e part y di scl osed i t
bef ore bei ng not i f i ed; and may prompt l y present t h e i nf ormat i on t o
t h e court under seal f or a det ermi nat i on of t h e cl ai m. Th e person
wh o produced t h e i nf ormat i on must preserve t h e i nf ormat i on unt i l
t h e cl ai m i s resol ved.
(e) C ont empt . Th e i ssui ng court may h ol d i n cont empt a person
wh o, h avi ng been served, f ai l s wi t h out adeq uat e excuse t o obey t h e
subpoena. A nonpart y ' s f ai l ure t o obey must be excused i f t h e
subpoena purport s t o req ui re t h e nonpart y t o at t end or produce at a
pl ace out si de t h e l i mi t s of Rul e 45(c)(3)(A)(i i ).
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE
SUBPOENA EXHIBIT A
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Unless o t h er w i se. sp ec i f i ed , eac h d o c ument r eq uest h er ei n seek s p r o d uc t i o n o f t h e.
d o c ument s c alled f o r i n t h ei r ent i r et y , i nc lud i ng all at t ac h ment s o r af f i x at i o ns t h er et o . If any o f
t h e d o c ument s c anno t be p r o d uc ed i n f ull, y o u ar e r eq uest ed t o p r o d uc e t h em t o t h e ex t ent
p o ssi ble.
2 . In c o nst r ui ng t h ese r eq uest s, ( i ) t h e- w o r d s "and " and "o r " sh all be c o nst r ued ei t h er
d i sj unc t i v ely o r c o nj unc t i v ely so as t o br i ng w i t h i n t h e sc o p e o f t h ese r eq uest s all d o c ument s t h at
o t h er w i se mi g h t be c o nst r ued t o be o ut si d e i t s sc o p e; ( i i ) t h e use o f a w o r d i n i t s si ng ular f o r m
sh all be d eemed t o i nc lud e t h e p lur al and v i c e v er sa; ( i i i ) t h e w o r d s "any " and "all" sh all be r ead
t o mean eac h and ev er y ; ( i v ) t h e p r esent t ense o f any v er b sh all i nc lud e i t s p ast t ense and v i c e
v er sa; and ( v ) t h e w o r d s "and " and "o r " mean "and /o r " and sh o uld be r ead bo t h w ay s so as t o
enc o mp ass bo t h c o nst r uc t i o ns and c all f o r answ er s t o be p r o v i d ed t o bo t h c o nst r uc t i o ns. .
3 . Th e t er ms "y o u" o r "y o ur " sh all r ef er t o t h e Pennsy lv ani a Dep ar t ment o f Publi c
Welf ar e as w ell as all i t s emp lo y ees, o f f i c er s, d i r ec t o r s, and member s and any o f i t s at t o r ney s,
r ep r esent at i v es, ag ent s and all o t h er p er so ns o r ent i t i es ac t i ng o n beh alf o f t h e f o r eg o i ng .
4. Th e t er ms "r ef er r i ng , " "r elat ed , " "r elat e, " "c o nc er ni ng , " and "r elat i ng " ar e t o be
c o nst r ued i n t h ei r br o ad est p o ssi ble sense. Fo r ex amp le, t h ey mean, w i t h o ut li mi t at i o n,
c o mp r i si ng , r ef er r i ng t o , r elat i ng t o , r esp o nd i ng t o , i mp li c at i ng , h av i ng any r elat i o nsh i p t o ,
p er t ai ni ng t o , ev i d enc i ng o r c o nst i t ut i ng ev i d enc e o f , r eg ar d i ng , af f ec t i ng o r af f ec t ed by ,
c o nnec t ed t o , r elat ed t o , asso c i at ed w i t h , w h et h er d i r ec t ly o r i nd i r ec t ly , o r i n w h o le o r i n p ar t , t h e
subj ec t mat t er o f t h e p ar t i c ular r eq uest .
#1061408 v l No v ember 2 5, 2 013 ( 2 :58 PM)
5 . The term "document" s ha l l be cons trued to the broa des t ex tent p os s i bl e a nd i s
us ed i n the broa des t p os s i bl e s ens e. For ex a mp l e, the term "document" i ncl udes , w i thout
l i mi ta ti on, a ny w ri tten, p ri nted, typ ed, p hotos ta tted, p hotog ra p hi c, comp uteri z ed, el ectroni c,
recorded or otherw i s e rep roduced communi ca ti on or rep res enta ti on, w hether comp os ed of l etters ,
w ords ,. numbers , p i ctures , s ounds , or s ymbol s , or a ny combi na ti on thereof, a l l cop i es or
dup l i ca tes of documents contemp ora neous l y or s ubs eq uentl y crea ted tha t ha ve a ny non-i denti ca l
notes or other ma rki ng s , a l l corres p ondence, memora nda , e-ma i l s , notes , records , l etters ,
envel op es , tel eg ra ms , mes s a g es , s tudi es , a na l ys es , contra cts , a g reements , w orki ng p a p ers ,
s umma ri es , s ta ti s ti ca l - s ta tements , i nvoi ces , recei p ts ; fi na nci a l - s ta tements ; w ork p a p ers , a ccounts ,
a na l yti ca l records , rep orts a nd/ or s umma ri es of i nves ti g a ti ons , tra de l etters , p res s rel ea s es ,
comp a ri s ons , books , ca l enda rs , di a ri es , a rti cl es , ma g a z i nes , new s p a p ers , bookl ets , brochures ,
p a mp hl ets , ci rcul a rs , bul l eti ns , noti ces , dra w i ng s , di a g ra ms , i ns tructi ons , notes or mi nutes of
meeti ng s ; or other communi ca ti ons of a ny typ e, w hether i n p hys i ca l or el ectroni c form a nd
reg a rdl es s of how s tored a nd tra ns l a ted, i f neces s a ry, i nto us a bl e form, a s w el l a s a ny p rel i mi na ry
vers i ons , dra fts , or revi s i ons of a ny of the foreg oi ng .
6 . The term "communi ca ti on(s )" s ha l l mea n a nd i ncl ude every ma nner or mea ns of
di s cl os ure, tra ns fer, or ex cha ng e, a nd every di s cl os ure, tra ns fer or ex cha ng e of i nforma ti on
w hether ora l l y or by document or fa ce- to- fa ce, by tel ep hone, tel ecop i er, ma i l , comp uter
communi ca ti on (i . e. , e- ma i l or i ns ta nt mes s a g es ); p ers ona l del i very, vi deo or a udi o conference,
or otherw i s e, a nd w hether s ent or recei ved.
7 . Produce a l l documents res p ons i ve to the req ues ts tha t a re w i thi n your di rect or
i ndi rect p os s es s i on, cus tody or control .
2
# 106 1408 vl November 25 , 2013 (2:5 8 PM)
8 . I f any documents r eq uested h er ei n wer e f or mer ly i n your p ossessi on, custody or
contr ol, but ar e no long er , p lease state i n wr i ti ng f or each such document: (a) th e typ e of
document, e. g . , letter or memor andum; (b) th e date of th e document; (c) th e auth or of th e
document; (d) th e p er sons wh o h ave seen or h ad p ossessi on _ of th e document; (e) a detai led
descr i p ti on of th e subj ect matter of th e document; (~ wh y th e document i s no long er i n your
p ossessi on; (g ) wh o last h ad p ossessi on of th e document; and (h ) wh at p er son cur r ently h as
p ossessi on of th e document.
9. A ll documents p r oduced p ur suant to th i s r eq uest sh all be p r oduced by sour ce of
f i le and i n th e manner i n wh i ch th ey ar e or wer e mai ntai ned i n th e or di nar y cour se of busi ness.
1 0 . A ny document stor ed electr oni cally i n th e or di nar y cour se of busi ness sh all be
p r oduced electr oni cally i n th e same f i le f or mat i n wh i ch i t i s stor ed.
1 1 . I f you obj ect to any r eq uest, state wi th sp eci f i ci ty th e g r ounds f or each obj ecti on
and th e r eq uest or r eq uests to wh i ch each obj ecti on ap p li es. A ny r eq uest to wh i ch an obj ecti on i s
made sh ould be r esp onded to i nsof ar as i t i s not deemed obj ecti onable.
1 2 . A s to any document wi th h eld f r om p r oducti on i n wh ole or i n p ar t due to a clai m
of p r i vi leg e or wor k p r oduct, state: (i ) th e r eason f or wi th h oldi ng th e document; (i i ) th e auth or of
th e document; (i i i ) each p er son to wh om th e or i g i nal or a cop y of th e document was sent; (i v) th e
date of th e document; and (v) th e subj ect matter of th e document.
CA TEGORI ES OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
1 . A ll documents r ef er r i ng or r elati ng to your p oli ci es and p r acti ces i n p laci ng or
allowi ng county ag enci es to p lace ch i ldr en and youth f or adop ti on or i n f oster car e wi th lesbi an
or g ay i ndi vi duals or same- sex coup les, i ncludi ng wi th out li mi tati on documents suf f i ci ent to
sh ow all cr i ter i a you use or r eq ui r e of or r ecommend to any Pennsylvani a county ch i ldr en &
# 1 0 61 40 8 vl November 2 5, 2 0 1 3 (2 :58 PM)
y o u t h agency t o co ns i d er wh en maki ng an ad o p t i o n o r f o s t er- car e p lacement d eci s i o n; all
d o cu ment s i d ent i f y i ng any s p eci al cr i t er i a t o be co ns i d er ed bef o r e maki ng p lacement s wi t h
les bi an and gay i nd i v i d u als and co u p les t h at d o no t ap p ly f o r p lacement s wi t h h et er o s ex u al
i nd i v i d u als and co u p les ; and d o cu ment s s u f f i ci ent t o s h o w wh et h er P enns y lv ani a r eq u i r es t h at
t h e s ex u al o r i ent at i o n o f p r o s p ect i v e f o s t er o r ad o p t i v e p ar ent s be as cer t ai ned d u r i ng t h e
ap p li cat i o n o r h o me s t u d y p r o ces s .
2 . A ll d o cu ment s r ef er r i ng o r r elat i ng t o t h e p o li ci es and p r act i ces o f any
P enns y lv ani a co u nt y ch i ld r en &y o u t h agency i n p laci ng o r allo wi ng co u nt y agenci es t o p lace.
ch i ld r en and y o u t h f o r ad o p t i o n o r i n f o s t er car e wi t h les bi an o r gay i nd i v i d u als o r s ame- s ex
co u p les .
3 . A ll d o cu ment s r ef er r i ng o r r elat i ng t o analy s es , s t at i s t i cs , o r calcu lat i o ns o f t h e
nu mber s o f ch i ld r en o r y o u t h p laced f o r ad o p t i o n o r f o s t er cas e wi t h les bi an o r gay i nd i v i d u als o r
s ame- s ex co u p les .
4
#1061408 v l No v ember 2 5, 2 013 ( 2 : 58 P I v n

EXHIBIT PX-40

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
December 17, 2013
John S. St a p el t on, Esq.
Ha ngl ey Arochick Sega l Pudl in &Schil l er
One Loga n Squa re, 27t h Fl oor
Phil a del p hia , PA 19103-6933
Ma ureen McBride, Esq.
Ma ry-El l en Al l en, Esq.
La mb McErl a ne PC
24 Ea st Ma rket St reet
West Chest er, PA 193 81
RE: Whit ewood, et a l . v . Wol f, et a l .
No. 13-1861-JEJ (M.D. Pa .)
Product ion of document s in resp onse t o subp oena
Dea r Counsel :
Encl osed is t he resp onse of t he Dep a rt ment of Publ ic Wel fa re t o t he
subp oena serv ed by p l a int iffs on or a bout Nov ember 26, 2013. Resp onsiv e
document s a re a l so incl uded.
Sincerel y,
~ ~ ~ ; ~
~ ~ ~
~ v
Da niel Fel l in
Dep ut y Chief Counsel
enc.
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE -- - r--~ ~
3" FL. WEST, HEALTH &WELFARE BLDG. ~ 7 & FORSTER STREETS ~ HARRISBURG, PA 17120 ' ~ `
Ph. 717-783-2800 ~ Fx: 717-772-0717 ~ www.dp w.st a t e,p a.us ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ' ~ ,~
~ f _ _ ~ _ .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Whitewood, et a l . ,
Pl a in tif f s ,
v . CA No. 13-1861-JEJ
Wol f , et a l . ,
Def en da n ts
RESPONSE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WELFARE TO PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT
INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
The Depa rtmen t of Pu b l ic Wel f a re prov ides this res pon s e to the
s u b poen a s erv ed b y Pl a in tif f s on or a b ou t Nov emb er 26, 2013:
1. Al l doc u men ts ref errin g or rel a tin ~You r pol ic ies or pra c tic es
in pl a c in g or a l l owin c ~t~a ~en c ies to pl a c e c hil dren a n d you th f or
a doption or in f os ter c a re with l es b ia n or g a v in div idu a l s or s a me-s ex
c ou pl es , in c l u din g withou t l imita tion doc u men ts s u f f ic ien t to s how a l l
c riteria you u s e or req u ire or rec ommen d to a n y Pen n s yl v a n ia c ou n ty
c hil dren &you th a g en c y to c on s ider when ma kin a g n a doption or f os ter-c a re
pl a c emen t dec is ion ; a l l doc u men ts iden ti in g a n y s pec ia l c riteria to b e
c on s idered b ef ore ma kin gpl a c emen ts with l es b ia n a n d g a y in div idu a l s a n d
c ou pl es tha t do n ot a ppl y f or pl a c emen ts with heteros ex u a l in div idu a l s a n d
c ou pl es ; a n d doc u men ts s u f f ic ien t to s how whether Pen n s yl v a n ia req u ires
tha t the s ex u a l orien ta tion of pros pec tiv e f os ter or a doptiv e pa ren ts b e
a s c erta in ed du rin tg he a ppl ic a tion or home s tu dy proc es s .
The Depa rtmen t of Pu b l ic Wel f a re ha s n o doc u men ts in its pos s es s ion
ref errin g or rel a tin g to s pec if ic pol ic ies or pra c tic es in pl a c in g c hil dren f or
a doption or f os ter c a re with l es b ia n or g a y in div idu a l s or s a me-s ex c ou pl es .
Theref ore, the Depa rtmen t ha s n o doc u men ts res pon s iv e to this c a teg ory.
To the ex ten t the s u b poen a s eeks doc u men ts tha t rel a te to pl a c in g
c hil dren f or a doption or f os ter c a re g en era l l y in a n y f a mil y s ettin g , the
Department o b j ec ts to th i s req u es t o n th e b as i s th at i t i s o v erl y b ro ad and
u ndu l y b u rdens o me.
2. A l l do c u ments ref erri ng o r rel ati n t~ o th e po l i c i es and prac ti c es
o f any Penns y l v ani a c o u nty c h i l dren &y o u th ag enc y i n pl ac i ng o r al l o wi ng
c o u nty ag enc i es to pl ac e c h i l dren and y o u th f o r ado pti o n i n f o s ter c are wi th
l es b i an o r day i ndi v i du al s o r s ame- s ex c o u pl es
Th e Department o f Pu b l i c Wel f are h as no do c u ments i n i ts po s s es s i o n
ref erri ng o r rel ati ng to s pec i f i c po l i c i es o r prac ti c es o f any Penns y l v ani a
c o u nty c h i l dren &y o u th ag enc y i n pl ac i ng o r al l o wi ng c o u nty ag enc i es to
pl ac e c h i l dren f o r ado pti o n o r f o s ter c are wi th l es b i an o r g ay i ndi v i du al s o r
s ame- s ex c o u pl es . Th eref o re, th e Department h as no do c u ments res po ns i v e
to th i s c ateg o ry .
To th e ex tent th e s u b po ena s eek s do c u ments th at rel ate to pl ac i ng
c h i l dren f o r ado pti o n o r f o s ter c are g eneral l y i n any f ami l y s etti ng , th e
Department o b j ec ts to th i s req u es t o n th e b as i s th at i t i s o v erl y b ro ad and
u ndu l y b u rdens o me.
3. A l l do c u ments ref erri ng o r rel ati ng to anal y s es , s tati s ti c s , o r
c al c u l ati o ns o f th e nu mb ers o f c h i l dren and o ~ pl ac ed f o r ado pti o n o r
f o s ter c are wi th l es b i an o r ~ av i ndi v i du al s o r s ame- s ex c o u pl es .
Th e Department pro v i des i n res po ns e to th i s c ateg o ry :
- A data repo rt ru n o n th e Res o u rc e Fami l y Reg i s try wi th i n th e
Penns y l v ani a A do pti o n Ex c h ang e datab as e o n Dec emb er 10, 2013
- A Res o u rc e Fami l y A ppl i c ant Reg i s trati o n/ L J pdate Fo rm (CY 131),
al s o av ai l ab l e at
h ttp: / /www.ado ptpak i ds .o rg / Do c u ments/ CY 131 RFRReg i s trati o nUpda
te.pdf
-Res o u rc e Fami l y A ppl i c ati o n Reg i s trati o n/ L Tpdate Fo rm (CY 131)-
I ns tru c ti o ns , al s o av ai l ab l e at
h ttp: / /www.ado ptpak i ds .o rg / Do c u ments/ CY 131 RFRReg i s trati o nUpda
teI ns tru c ti o ns .pdf
By way of fu r t h e r r e s p on s e an d e x p l an at i on , Pe n n s yl van i a Adop t i on
Ex ch an ge i s op e r at e d by t h e De p ar t me n t 's con t r act or , Di akon Lu t h e r an
S oci al M i n i s t r i e s , i n p ar t n e r s h i p wi t h Fami l y De s i gn R e s ou r ce s .
Th e dat a r e p or t s h ows :
In t h e h i s t or y of t h e R e s ou r ce Fami l y R e gi s t r y, dat i n g back t o i t s
cr e at i on i n 1990, t h e r e h ave be e n a t ot al of 60, 852 r e gi s t r an t s ap p r ove d t o be
adop t i ve p ar e n t s ("A") , fos t e r p ar e n t s ("F") , ki n s h i p car e gi ve r s (K") , or
var yi n g combi n at i on s . Of t h os e , t h e r e ar e cu r r e n t l y 1, 07 3 for wh om
age n ci e s ar e cu r r e n t l y s e e ki n g an adop t i ve ch i l d ("M at ch i n g R e qu i r e d") . Of
t h os e 60, 852 r e gi s t r an t s , 41, 258 h ave be e n cl os e d by r e as on of an adop t i on ,
ot h e r p l ace me n t , l ack of r e s p on s e , or ot h e r r e as on i de n t i fi e d on p age 2 of t h e
CY 13 1 For m . S e e p age t i t l e d "Fami l y R e gi s t r at i on Typ e by R FR S t at u s . "
Of t h os e 60, 852 r e gi s t r an t s , 20 cou p l e s wi t h t wo fe mal e p ar t n e r s
("S S e x Fe mal e") an d 13 cou p l e s wi t h t wo mal e p ar t n e r s ("S S e x M al e") ar e
cu r r e n t l y s e e ki n g a ch i l d. 258 cou p l e s wi t h t wo fe mal e p ar t n e r s an d 86
cou p l e s wi t h t wo mal e p ar t n e r s ar e n ot act i ve s e e ki n g a ch i l d or ar e on
h ol d. 3 24 cou p l e s wi t h t wo fe mal e p ar t n e r s an d 120 cou p l e s wi t h t wo mal e
p ar t n e r s h ave be e n cl os e d. S e e p age t i t l e d "Par e n t Comp os i t i on vs . Fami l y
R e gi s t r at i on Typ e . "
Of t h os e cas e s t h at h ave be e n cl os e d, 17 cou p l e s wi t h t wo fe mal e
p ar t n e r s an d 8 cou p l e s wi t h t wo mal e p ar t n e r s h ave be e n cl os e d du e t o an
adop t i on . S e e p age t i t l e d "Fami l y R e gi s t r at i on Typ e by Adop t i on Ou t come
- Cl os e d Fami l i e s . "
Of t h e 1, 3 15 cas e s t h at h ave be e n cl os e d du e t o comp l e t i on of an
adop t i on , 26 h ave be e n t o cou p l e s wh o s e l f-i de n t i fi e d as "al t e r n at i ve
l i fe s t yl e . " S e e p age t i t l e d "M ar i t al S t at u s by Adop t i on Ou t come . "
It s h ou l d be n ot e d t h at "al t e r n at i ve l i fe s t yl e " i s u n de fi n e d on t h e CY
13 1 i n s t r u ct i on s an d doe s n ot n e ce s s ar i l y me an a l e s bi an or gay i n di vi du al or
s ame- s e x cou p l e . For e x amp l e , a mot h e r an d dau gh t e r cou l d adop t a ch i l d
an d s e l f-i de n t i fy as "al t e r n at i ve l i fe s t yl e . " In addi t i on , a s i n gl e l e s bi an or
gay i n di vi du al cou l d be come an adop t i ve p ar e n t an d s e l f-i de n t i fy as
"di vor ce d, " "s e p ar at e d, " or "s i n gl e . "
3
I t should a lso be not ed t ha t not every a dop t i on t ha t t a k es p la c e i n
Pennsylva ni a i s rec orded on t he Resourc e Fa mi ly Reg i st ry or t he
Pennsylva ni a Adop t i on Exc ha ng e. Whi le a ny fa mi ly t ha t seek s t o a dop t a
c hi ld ma y reg i st er on t he Resourc e Fa mi ly Reg i st ry, only t hose fa mi li es
seek i ng a dop t i on of a c hi ld i n t he leg a l c ust ody of a p ubli c c hi ldren a nd
yout h a g enc y must be reg i st ered on t he Resourc e Fa mi ly Reg i st ry.
To t he ext ent t hi s req uest seek s i nforma t i on t ha t would req ui re
di sc losure of i nforma t i on t ha t would i dent i fy a p a rt i c ula r a dop t i ve c hi ld or
p a rent s, t he Dep a rt ment obj ec t s t o t hi s req uest on t he ba si s t ha t i t seek s
i nforma t i on t ha t i s c onfi dent i a l p ursua nt t o Pennsylva ni a la w, i nc ludi ng but
not li mi t ed t o 23 Pa .C.S. 2924, 2931-2938.
Da t e: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4
Si nc erely,
1 M. Felli n
At t orney I .D. No. 76621
Dep ut y Chi ef Counsel
Dep a rt ment of Publi c Welfa re
O ffi c e of Genera l Counsel
3rd Floor West
Hea lt h &Welfa re Bui ldi ng
Ha rri sburg , PA 17120
(717) 783-2800
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Whitewood, et a l . ,
Pl a in tif f s ,
v .
CA No. 13-1861-J EJ
Wol f , et a l . ,
Def en da n ts
I hereby c ertif y tha t on this da te I s erv ed a c opy of the f oreg oin g
doc umen t upon the pers on s bel ow in the ma n n er in dic a ted.
By ov ern ig ht ma il a ddres s ed a s f ol l ows :
J ohn S. Sta pel ton , Es q.
Ha n g l ey Aroc hic k Seg a l Pudl in &Sc hil l er
On e Log a n Squa re, 2 7 th Fl oor
Phil a del phia , PA 19103-6933
Da te: ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ " ~ 3
Ma ureen Mc Bride, Es q.
Ma ry-El l en Al l en , Es q.
La mb Mc Erl a n e PC
2 4 Ea s t Ma rket Street
Wes t Ches ter, PA 193 81
Da n iel M. Fel l in
Attorn ey I. D. No. 7 662 1
Deputy Chief Coun s el
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS
Family R e g is t r at io n Type by R FR St at us
Co un t
R FR St at us
No
Mat chin g
Mat chin g /Clo s e d To t al
R e quir e d
Ho ld
R e g as : A 503 2039 6268 8810
A,F 549 1365 2108 4022
A, F, K 20 148 181 349
A,K 1 441 469 911
F 0 8903 24512 33415
F,K 0 788 813 1601
K 0 4837 6907 11744
To t al 1073 18521 41258 60852
P
a
r
e
n
t

C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

v
s
.

F
a
m
i
l
y

R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

T
y
p
e
F
a
m
i
l
y

R
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

T
y
p
e
R
F
R

S
t
a
t
u
s
A
A
,
F
A
,
F
,
K
A
,
K
F
F
,
K
K
T
o
t
a
l
M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
o
S
i
n
g
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e
7
3
8
7
6
0
1
6
6
~
~
S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
l
e
9
1
1
2
0
2
2
Q
S
S
e
x

F
e
m
a
l
e
1
1
9
0
0
2
0
a
o
H
S
e
x

C
o
u
p
l
e
4
0
2
4
3
7
1
2
1
8
5
2
v
S
S
e
x

M
a
l
e
8
5
0
0
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
5
0
3
5
4
9
2
0
1
1
,
0
7
3
N
o

M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g

/
H
o
l
d
o
S
i
n
g
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e
4
6
6
2
9
5
5
7
2
0
5
3
,
6
2
2
3
9
2
2
,
2
5
8
7
,
2
9
5
_
~
S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
l
e
3
8
1
8
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
7
1
8
0
5
0
8
J
o
S
S
e
x

F
e
m
a
l
e
4
7
2
4
0
6
9
7
1
1
7
3
2
5
8
a
o
H
S
e
x

C
o
u
p
l
e
1
,
4
6
5
1
,
0
1
3
8
7
2
1
6
4
,
9
2
2
3
5
5
2
,
3
1
6
1
0
,
3
7
4
v
S
S
e
x

M
a
l
e
2
3
1
5
1
3
3
1
3
1
0
8
6
T
o
t
a
l
2
,
0
3
9
1
,
3
6
5
1
4
8
4
4
1
8
,
9
0
3
7
8
8
4
,
8
3
7
1
8
,
5
2
1
C
l
o
s
e
d
o
S
i
n
g
l
e

F
e
m
a
l
e
1
,
1
7
2
3
5
9
6
4
1
8
7
8
,
6
6
6
3
2
2
2
,
8
4
9
1
3
,
6
1
9
~
*
_
'
S
i
n
g
l
e

M
a
l
e
1
4
9
4
0
2
1
0
5
1
0
1
9
2
1
7
9
4
7
J
L
Q
S
S
e
x

F
e
m
a
l
e
5
6
3
0
4
4
1
2
6
1
0
9
4
3
2
4
a
H
S
e
x

C
o
u
p
l
e
4
,
8
5
2
1
,
6
5
7
1
0
9
2
6
5
1
5
,
1
8
2
4
6
1
3
,
7
2
2
2
6
,
2
4
8
0
~
S
S
e
x

M
a
l
e
3
9
2
2
2
3
2
8
1
2
5
1
2
0
T
o
t
a
l
6
,
2
6
8
2
,
1
0
8
1
8
1
4
6
9
2
4
,
5
1
2
8
1
3
6
,
9
0
7
4
1
,
2
5
8
Family Registration Type by Adotion Outcome -
Closed Families
AdotedYN
Parent Composition Adopted No Adoption Total
S ingle Female Reg As: A 142 1030 1172
A,F 36 323 359
A,F,K 12 52 64
A, K 68 119 187
F 0 8666 8666
F,K 0 322 322
K 0 2849 2849
Total 258 13361 13619
S ingle Male Reg As: A 11 138 149
A,F 3 37 40
A,F,K 0 2 2
A,K 2 8 10
F 0 510 510
F, K 0 19 19
K 0 217 217
Total 16 931 947
S S ex Female Reg As: A 14 42 56
A, F 0 30 30
A,F,K 3 1 4
A,K 0 4 4
F 0 126 126
F, K 0 10 10
K 0 94 94
Total 17 307 324
HS ex Couple Reg As: A 685 4167 4852
A,F 202 1455 1657
A,F,K 28 81 109
A,K 101 164 265
F 0 15182 15182
F, K 0 461 461
K 0 3722 3722
Total 1016 25232 26248
S S ex Male Reg As: A 6 33 39
A,F 2 20 22
A,F,K 0 2 2
A,K 0 3 3
F 0 28 28
F, K 0 1 1
K 0 25 25
Total 8 112 120
Marital Status
Tota
Marital Status by Adoption Outcome
AdotedYN
Adopted No Adoption Total
None /Unk 13 206 219
Alternativ e L if estyle 26 442 468
Div orced 71 3,268 3,339
Married 997 23,768 24,765
Separated 23 1,466 1,489
Sing le 163 9,240 9,403
Widowed 22 1,553 1,575
1,315 39,943 41,258
Family R eg istration Type of Alternativ e L if e Style by Adoption Outcome
AdotedYN
Adopted No Adoption Total
Family R eg Type A 23 101 124
A, F 3 46 49
A,F,K 0 1 1
A,K 0 7 7
F 0 193 193
F, K 0 8 8
K 0 86 86
Total 26 442 468
RESOURCE FAMILY APPLICANT REGISTRATION /UPDATE FORM (CY 131)
Ma i l t o :
PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION EXCHANGE
P.O. Bo x 4469
Ha rri sburg, PA 17111-0469
800-227-0225
Fo r upda t es: Co mpl et e Agency Inf o rma t i o n
K SWAN ID # K PAE ID #
sect i o n; sha ded ent ry bl o ck s a nd a l l
i nf o rma t i o n t ha t ha s Cha n ed.
~ ~ -.~
Al l f i el ds -must be f i l l ed o ut unl ess no t ed
PARTNER #1
LAST NAME FIRST NAME MI GENDER
K MALE ~~~~~~~
DATE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY # (Request ed) TELEPHONE (Da yl i ght )
RACE AND ETHNICITY -Check a l p t ha t a pp~y
RACE: ~~~~~~~~~~Indi a n /Al a sk a n Na t i ve O Asi a n K Bi a ck ! Af ri ca n Ameri ca n ~~~~~~~~Ha wa i i a n /Ot her Pa ci f i c Isl a nder K Whi t e
ETHNICITY HISPANIC: O YES K NO
PARTNER #2
LAST NAME FIRST NAME MI GENDER
K MALE ~~~~~~~
DATE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY # (Request ed) TELEPHONE (Da yl i ght )
RACE AND ETHNICITY -Check a l l t ha t a ppl y
RACE: ~~~~~~~~~~Indi a n /Al a sk a n Na t i ve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/Af ri ca n Ameri ca n ~~~~~~~~Ha wa i i a n /Ot her Pa ci f i c Isl a nder K Whi t e
ETHNICITY HISPANIC: ~~~~~K NO
STREET ADDRESS
E-MAIL
CITY STATE ZIP COUNTY
APPLICANTS) MARITAL STATUS
K Ma rri ed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Li f est yl e ~~~~~~
PREVIOUS FAMILY ADDRESSES
Li st a l l ho me a ddresses f o r t he previ o us 10 yea rs (a t t a ch a ddi t i o na l pa ge, i f needed) OR K No t Appl i ca bl e
STREET CITY STATE ZIP COUNTY
ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD
At t a ch a ddi t i o na l pa ge, i f necessa ry, OR ~~~~~Appl i ca bl e
Fo r f a mi l i es a l rea d re i st ered ONLY: If a ddi n o r remo vi n a member o f t he ho useho l d, check New o r Del et e a s a ppro ri a t e
NAME DATE OF BIRTH GENDER
RELATIONSHIP
TO APPLICANTS
SOCIAL SECURITY
# (Request ed)
New Del et e
Pa ge 1 o f 5 Rev. 05-10
FAMILY INFORMATION
Please answer t h e f o llo wi ng q u est i o ns.
1 . Li st t h e o ccu pat i o ns o f t h e appli cant s, i nclu d i ng ast ay- at- h o me parent .
K Part ner 1
K Part ner 2
2. Li st any speci al need s t rai ni ng appli cant s h ave.
3 . S elect t h e t ype o f nei g h bo rh o o d wh ere appli cant s li ve. ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FAMILY DIS POS ITION
Di spo si t i o n: ~~~~~~~~~~ K DIS APPROVED ~~~~~~~ DATE o f DIS POS ITION
Fo r t ype o f care: ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~CARE O KINS HIP
Please ch o o se t ype o f f o st er care appro val o r reaso n f o r any d i sappro val o r clo su re belo w.
APPROVED - Fo r f o st er care, DIS APPROVED - Ch o o se reaso n CLOS ED - Ch o o se reaso n
ch o o se t ype o f appro val K CHILD ABUS E HIS TORY ~~~~~~~~~ch i ld f ro m PA ch i ld welf are
K CRIMINAL HIS TORY syst em
K FULL
K FAILURE TO COMPLETE ~~~~~~~~~ch i ld f ro m ano t h er st at e (CW)
TRAINING ~~~~~~~~~pri vat ely /d o mest i cally
K REGULATION WAIVER
D FAILURE TO FOLLOW ~~~~~~~~~i nt ernat i o nally
GRANTED
AGENCY POLICY ~~~~~~~~~ad o pt i o n
K FALS IFICATION / ~~~~~~~~~care no t ad o pt i o n
MIS REPRES ENTATION OF ~~~~~~~~~h o me- ch i ld no lo ng er i n h o me
INFORMATION ~~~~~~~~~~~Leg al Cu st o d i an
K UNFAVORABLE FAMILY ~~~~~~~~u nrespo nsi ve
PROFILE ~~~~~~~t o o t h er ag ency
K OTHER Ex plai n: ~~~~~~~away
K No lo ng er i nt erest ed /perso nal reaso ns
K Ot h er reaso n:
If clo si ng a previ o u sly reg i st ered , appro ved f ami ly, co mplet e all sh ad ed areas o f t h e f o rm and t h e Ag ency
Inf o rmat i o n sect i o n. S i g n and d at e belo w. I cert i f y t h at t h e i nf o rmat i o n pro vi d ed i s accu rat e and co mplet e.
S i g nat u re Dat e
FOS TER FAMILY APPEAL ACTIVITY
~
APPEAL UPHELD DATE
K FAMILY FILED APPEAL
K APPEAL DENIED
LAS T ANY RES TRICTIONS TO
APPROVAL
BAS IS FOR APPEAL
' ~ t
REGIS TERING AGENCY
REGIS TERING AGENCY CAS EWORKER (Fu ll name)
MAILING ADDRES S E- MAIL
CITY S TATE ZIP COUNTY
TELEPHONE # FAX #
ALL PREVIOUS FOS TER CARE /ADOPTION AGENCY AFFILIATIONS o r ~~~~~Appli cable
At t ach ad d i t i o nal a e, i f need ed
PREVIOUS AGENCY CAS EWORKER (Fu ll name)
MAILING ADDRES S E- MAIL
CITY S TATE ZIP COUNTY
TELEPHONE # FAX #
Pag e 2 o f 5 Rev. 05- 1 0
ALL PREVIOUS FOSTER CARE /ADOPTION AGENCY AFFILIATIONS (continued)
PREVIOUS AGENCY
CASEWORKER (Ful l name)
MAILING ADDRESS E-MAIL
CITY STATE ZIP COUNTY
TELEPHONE # FAX #
I~ ~ ~ ... ~
1 '
WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CHILDREN APPROVED FOR THIS FAMILY'S HOME?
SPECIAL NEEDS
CHECK ALL SPECIAL NEEDS FAMILY IS APPROVED TO PROVIDE. O NOT APPLICABLE
K ABUSE HISTORY K NEGLECT HISTORY
O ALCOHOL EXPOSED K PHYSICAL DISABILITY
K DRUG EXPOSED INFANT K RUNAWAY HISTORY
K EMOTIONAL DISABILITY O SEXUAL ABUSE HISTORY
K HIV K SIBLINGS: #
K MH DIAGNOSIS K SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT
K MR DIAGNOSIS K SPECIAL MEDICAL CARE
K MULTIPLE PLACEMENT HISTORY
K OTHER:
TYPE OF CHILD FAMILY PREFERS - If f amil y is dis ap p r ov ed, check Not Ap p l icab l e K
RACE /ETHNICITY -Check al l f amil y w il l accep t GENDER NUMBER OF CHILDREN 8 ~ AGE RANGE
RACE:
AGE RANGE:
K AMERICAN INDIAN /ALASKAN NATIVE
BETWEEN and YEARS
K ASIAN
~~~~~
K BLACK /AFRICAN AMERICAN
~~~~~~~
NUMBER OF CHILDREN:
K NATIVE HAWAIIAN /OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~CHILD
D WHITE
~~~~~~~~~
ETHNICITY HISPANIC: ~~~~~K NO
MAXIMUM NUMBER
STOP HERE if match s ug es tions ar e not needed
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILD
For adop tiv e f amil ies onl y : Pl eas e choos e f r om the char acter is tics l is ted to tel l us the ty p e of chil d the f amil y w ants to
adop t.Pl ace an X in the mos t ap p r op r iate b ox f or each char acter is tic.
HEALTH
Char acter is tic
Accep tab l e
Wil l
Cons ider
Unaccep tab l e
1.No s ignif icant heal th p r ob l ems
2.Al l er gies or as thma (may r eq uir e tr eatment)
3.Hy p er activ ity (may r eq uir e tr eatment)
4.Sp eech p r ob l ems (may r eq uir e tr eatment)
5 .Hear ing p r ob l ems (may r eq uir e tr eatment)
6.Legal l y deaf
7 .Vis ion p r ob l ems (may r eq uir e tr eatment)
8 .Legal l y b l ind
9.Dental p r ob l ems (may r eq uir e tr eatment)
10.Or thop edic p r ob l ems (s p ecial s hoes , b r ace, etc.)
11.Seizur e dis or der
Page 3 of 5 Rev .05-10
EDUCATION
Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c
Ac c e pt a ble
W i ll
Cons i de r
Una c c e pt a ble
12. Hi gh a c h i e ve r
13. Ac h i e ve s on gr a de le ve l i n r e gu la r c la s s e s
14. Ac h i e ve s be low gr a de le ve l i n r e gu la r c la s s e s
15. Ne e ds s pe c i a l e du c a t i on c la s s e s
16. Ne e ds le a r ni ng di s a bi li t y c la s s e s (LD)
17. Ne e ds c la s s e s f or t h e e m ot i ona lly or be h a vi or a lly h a ndi c a ppe d
18. Ne e ds t u t or i ng i n one or m or e s u bje c t s
19. Ha s s e r i ou s be h a vi or pr oble m s a t s c h ool
CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS
Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c Ac c e pt a ble
W i ll
Cons i de r
Una c c e pt a ble
20. Ge ne r a lly q u i e t a nd s h y
21. Ge ne r a lly ou t goi ng a nd noi s y
22. Em ot i ona l i s s u e s r e q u i r e ongoi ng t h e r a py
23. Te nds t o r e je c t f a t h e r f i gu r e s
24. Te nds t o r e je c t m ot h e r f i gu r e s
25. Di f f i c u lt y m a ki ng f r i e nds a nd r e la t i ng t o ot h e r c h i ldr e n.
26. Fr e q u e nt ly we t s t h e be d.
27. Fr e q u e nt ly we t s du r i ng t h e da y
28. Fr e q u e nt ly s oi ls h i m / h e r s e lf
29. Ma s t u r ba t e s f r e q u e nt ly or ope nly
30. Poor s oc i a l s ki lls
31. Pr oble m wi t h ly i ng
32. Pr oble m wi t h s t e a li ng
33. Fr e q u e nt ly s t a r t s ph y s i c a l f i gh t s wi t h ot h e r c h i ldr e n
34. Te nds t o a bu s e a ni m a ls
35. Te nds t o be de s t r u c t i ve of c lot h i ng, t oy s . e t c .
36. Fr e q u e nt ly u s e s f ou l or ba d la ngu a ge
37. Fr e q u e nt t e m pe r t a nt r u m s
38. Di f f i c u lt y a c c e pt i ng a nd obe y i ng r u le s
39. Hi s t or y of i na ppr opr i a t e s e xu a l be h a vi or
40. Hi s t or y of r u nni ng a wa y
41. Hi s t or y of pla y i ng wi t h m a t c h e s , s e t t i ng f i r e s
FAMILY CONNECTEDNESS 8~ HISTORY
Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c Ac c e pt a ble
W i ll
Cons i de r
Una c c e pt a ble
42. St r ong t i e s t o bi r t h f a m i ly
43. St r ong t i e s t o f os t e r f a m i ly
44. Ne e ds c ont i nu e d c ont a c t wi t h s i bli ngs
45. Pr e vi ou s a dopt i ve di s r u pt i on
46. Se xu a lly a bu s e d
47. Expos e d t o pr om i s c u ou s s e xu a l be h a vi or
48. Conc e i ve d by r a pe
49. Conc e i ve d a s a r e s u lt of pr os t i t u t i on
Pa ge 4 of 5 Re v. 05-10
50. One or both parents addicted to al cohol
FAMILY CONNECTEDNESS 8 ~ HISTORY
Characteristic ~ Acceptabl e
W il l
Consider
Unacceptabl e
51. One or both parents chemical l y dependent, other than al cohol
52. One or both parents has criminal record
53. One or both parents mental l y retarded
54. One or both parents has mental il l ness
55. No inf ormation av ail abl e about one or more parent
RESOURCE FAMILY'S FEELINGS ABOUT OPENNESS W ITH BIRTH FAMILY
Characteristic Acceptabl e
W il l
Consider
Unacceptabl e
56. Meet w ith birth parents
57. Contact w ith birth parents through agency or intermediary
58 . Send l etters to birth parents
59. Receiv e l etters f rom birth parents
60. Send v ideos to birth parents
61. Receiv e v ideos f rom birth parents
62. Hav e phone contact betw een adul ts
63. Chil d continues v isits w ith sibl ings
64. Chil d continues v isits w ith extended rel ativ es in birth f amil y
65. Chil d continues v isits w ith birth parents
66. Receiv e birth parents' name, address, phone number, etc.
67. Adoptiv e parents w il l ing to giv e f irst name to birth parents
68 . Adoptiv e parents w il l ing to giv e identif ying inf ormation to birth parents
~ ' ! ~ ~
v erif y that this inf ormation is accurate and compl ete to the best of my know l edge or inf ormation and bel ief . The
inf ormation is submitted as true and correct under penal ty of l aw (Section 4904 of the Pennsyl v ania Crimes Code).
AGENCY W ORKER DATE
Page 5 of 5 Rev . 05-10
Resource Family Application Registration /Update Form (CY 131)-Instructions
Submit to
Pennsylvania Adoption Exchange, P.O. Box 4469, H arrisburg PA
17111- 0469, fax to 1-717-236- 8510.
1. To meet the requirements of the Resource Family Registry created
by Act 160 of 2004.
2. To report and update family profiles and studies on adoptive, foster
and k inship families who wish to provide care for children in the
When to use care and custody of county children and youth agencies.
3. Must be submitted on approved, disapproved and closed families.
Please contact PAE at 1(800)227- 0225 for questions about completing
the CY 131.
Used By
All agencies licensed to study families for foster, adoption and
k inship care
1. All fields must be completed unless noted.
2. Updates must be completed within 30 days of the
registering agency receiving information about a change in
household composition. If the H ousehold Member section is
updated, the shaded sections in the Applicant Information
section on page 1 of the form must also be completed.
3. Adult household members are those 18 and older who live in
the house at least 30, not necessarily consecutive, days per
Comments
year, including college students.
4. Children in the custody of a county children and youth agency
placed in the home do not need to be listed as members of
household.
5. If a child, currently in a family for foster care, is later adopted by
that family, the child must be added to the household
membership by updating the CY 131 when the adoption is
finaliz ed.
Information about the Family Registration /Update Form (CY- 131)
SWAN #
Include the SWAN number assigned by SWAN Prime Contractor (if
applicable)
PAE # If no PAE ID number is assigned, write "none." If unsure whether family
has a PAE ID number, contact 1-800-227- 0225.
~ ~ - .-
All fields must be filled out unless'nofed
Partner #1's Name
(L ast, First, Middle Enter applicant's full name
Initial
Gender Check box for male or female.
Date of Birth Enter date of birth in mm/dd/year format
Social Security
Enter applicant's SSN
Number
Telephone Enter applicant's daytime telephone number
CH eek all that apply. Choices are: American Indian/ Native Alask an, ,
Asian, Black /African American; Native- H awaiian/Other Pacific
Race and Ethnicity Islander, White.
Ethnicity H ispanic MUST be check ed as either Yes or No If H ispanic:
is check ed Yes, the. ap ro riate races must also be selected.
Page 1 of 5
Rev 05/10
Partner #2's Name
( L ast, F i rst, Mi ddle I f appli cable, enter the appli cant partner's f u ll name.
I ni ti al
Gender Check box f or male or f emale.
Date of B i rth Enter bi rth date i n mm/dd/year f ormat
S oci al S ecu ri ty
Enter appli cant's S S N
Nu mber
Telephone Enter appli cant partner's dayti me telephone nu mber
E- Mai l Enter f ami ly's e- mai l address
Check ali that apply. Choi ces are: Ameri can I ndi an/ Nati v e Alaskan,
Asi an, B lack/Af ri can Ameri can, Nati v e Hawai i an/Other Paci f i c
Race and Ethni ci ty I slander, Whi te.
Ethni ci ty Hi spani c MUS T be checked as ei ther Yes or No. I f Hi spani c
i s checked Yes, the appropri ate races mu st also be selected.
Mai li ng Address Enter f ami ly's mai li ng address street, ci ty, state and z i p code.
Cou nty Enter cou nty where f ami ly li v es
Appli cants) Mari tal Enter f ami ly's mari tal statu s. Choi ces are: Marri ed, S i ng le, Alternati v e
S tatu s L i f estyle, Other. I f Other, descri be.
Prev i ou s F ami ly Addresses.
L i st All home
L i st all complete home addresses ( street, state, z i p code) f or the
prev i ou s 10 years ( attach addi ti onal pag e, i f needed) or check Not
Addresses
Appli cable. Cou nty of resi dence mu st also be entered.
All Other Members ofHou sehold
Attach an addi ti onal pag e, i f necessary. All addi ti onal members of
hou sehold, i nclu di ng those ov er 18 years of ag e, mu st be li sted i n thi s
Attach Addi ti onal secti on. Appli cants are not li sted here.
Pag e
Check the NOT Appli cable box i f the hou sehold has no members other
than appli cants .
F or F ami li es
F or f ami li es already reg i stered ONL Y: I f addi ng or remov i ng a member
of the hou sehold, check New or Delete as a ro ri ate.
I nf ormati on req u i red f or each hou sehold member i nclu des: Name ( f i rst
and last), Date of B i rth, Gender, Relati onshi p to Appli cant ( S i ster, ni ece,
Name chi ld, f ri end, etc.). S oci al S ecu ri ty Nu mber i s req u ested; i f not prov i ded
enter all 7 's. New and Delete i s only u sed when u pdati ng of hou sehold
members.
F ami ly I nf ormati on
L i st the Occu pati on
L i st occu pati ons of appli cants, i nclu di ng astay- at- home parent. Prov i de
thi s i nf ormati on f or both partner 1 and 2.
L i st any S peci al L i st any speci al needs trai ni ng appli cants hav e ( ex .f or v i cti ms of sexu al
Needs Trai ni n abu se, older chi ldren, etc.
Type of I denti f y nei g hborhood type ( ru ral, u rban, su bu rban) where appli cants
Nei g hborhood li v e.
F ami ly Di sposi ti on
Report the ag ency di sposi ti on f or thi s f ami ly. Choi ces are: Approv ed,
Di sposi ti on Di sapprov ed or Closed. I ndi cate date of di sposi ti on i n mm/dd/year
f ormat.
I ndi cate type of care f or whi ch f ami ly i s bei ng approv ed, di sapprov ed or
closed. Choi ces are: Adopti v e, F oster Care, Ki nshi p
F or Type of Care
Note: I f closi ng , RF R wi ll close f or only the checked di sposi ti ons. I f
approv ed ori g i nally f or adopti on and f oster care and f oster care i s
checked i n the Closed statu s, then only the f oster care di sposi ti on wi ll be
closed.
Pag e 2 of 5
Rev . 05/10
Approval Type For f os t er care only f am i li es , i nd i cat e t ype of approval. Choi ces are Fu ll
f os t er care onl or Re u lat i on Wai ver Grant ed .
Di s approved
I nd i cat e reas on f or d i s approval. I f Ot her i s chos en, ex plai n reas on.
Reas on
I nd i cat e reas on f or clos u re. I f ad opt i on, clari f y t ype of ad opt i on
Clos ed Reas on
(Penns ylvani a chi ld w elf are, ot her s t at e chi ld w elf are, Dom es t i c,
I nt ernat i onal) . I f K i ns hi p, clari f y ou t com e of care i n t hat hom e (Ad opt i on,
Fos t er Care, Chi ld No Lon er i n Hom e . I f Ot her, ex lai n reas on.
For clos u re of previ ou s ly regi s t ered , approved f am i li es only. Thi s
Si gnat u re clari f i es w ho f rom t he agency i s clos i ng t he cas e. Provi d e d at e of
s i gnat u re i n m m / d d / ear f orm at .
Fos t er Fam i ly Appeal Act i vi t y
Appli cant m ay appeal agency d eci s i on t o d i s approve or provi s i onally
approve t hei r hom e u nd er 55 Pa. Cod e Chapt er 3700 (relat i ng t o f os t er
f am i ly care agency) Sect i on 72 (relat i ng t o f os t er f am i ly approval
Fam i ly Fi led Appeal appeals ) .
I f f os t er f am i ly or k i ns hi p (f orm al k i ns hi p care) f am i ly f i les an appeal,
check t he Fam i l Fi led A peal box .
Appeal
Check i f appeal i s u pheld or d eni ed . Provi d e d at e i n m m / d d / year f orm at .
Upheld / Deni ed
Li s t Any
Res t ri ct i ons
Bas i s f or Appeal Des cri be f am i ly' s d i s agreem ent w i t h agency' s d i s approval or clos u re.
- ~
Regi s t eri ng Agency.-
Regi s t eri ng Agency Nam e of regi s t eri ng agency
Cont act pers on (f u ll nam e) i n regi s t eri ng agency w ho m ay be cont act ed
Cou nt y Cas ew ork er
f or i nf orm at i on abou t t hi s f am i l
Agency cont act i nf orm at i on s hou ld i nclu d e m ai li ng s t reet or PO box
M ai li ng Ad d res s
nu m ber ad d res s , ci t y, s t at e and z i p cod e.
Cou nt y Cou nt y w here agency i s locat ed .
E-m ai l E-m ai l ad d res s f or agency cont act pers on
Telephone Nu m ber Telephone nu m ber w i t h area cod e of agency cont act pers on
Fax Nu m ber Fax nu m ber w i t h area cod e f or regi s t eri ng agency
-All Previ ou s Fos t er-Care 1 Ad opt i on Agency" Af f i li at i ons
All ot her pas t and cu rrent f os t er f am i ly care and ad opt i on agency
Previ ou s Agency
at ~ i li at i nnc m as t be li s t ed _ Us e ad d i t i onal naaes . i f need ed .
Cou nt y Cas ew ork er
Cont act pers on i n regi s t eri ng agency w ho m ay be cont act ed f or
i nf orm at i on abou t t hi s f am i l
M ai li ng Ad d res s
Agency cont act i nf orm at i on s hou ld i nclu d e m ai li ng s t reet or PO box
nu m ber ad d res s , ci t , s t at e and z i p cod e.
Cou nt y Cou nt y w here agency i s locat ed .
E-m ai l E-m ai l ad d res s f or agency cont act pers on
Telephone Nu m ber Telephone nu m ber w i t h area cod e of agency cont act pers on
Fax Nu m ber Fax nu m ber w i t h area cod e f or regi s t eri ng agency
Page 3 of 5
Rev. 05/ 1 0
. ~.. -.
Maximum number of c h il d ren approved for t h is famil y ' s h ome. Th is
Maximum Number number mus t be t h e s ame or great er t h an t h e number of c h il d ren t h e
famil refers .
Spec ial Need s
Ch ec king al l appropriat e s pec ial need s t h e famil y is approved t o
provid e.
Ch ec k A l l Spec ial
Ch oic es are: A bus e H is t ory , A l c oh ol Expos ed I nfant , Drug Expos ed
Need s Famil y I s
I nfant , Emot ional Dis abil it y , H I V, Ment al H eal t h Diagnos is , Ment al
A pproved t o
R et ard at ion Diagnos is , Mul t ipl e Pl ac ement H is t ory , Negl ec t H is t ory ,
Provid e
Ph y s ic al Dis abil it y , R unaway H is t ory , Sexual A bus e H is t ory , Sibl ings ,
Spec ial Ed uc at ion St ud ent , Spec ial Med ic al Care, O t h er.
Sibl ings : R ec ord number of s ibl ings famil y is approved t o s erve.
O t h er: R ec ord ot h er s pec ial need s famil is approved t o s erve.
Ty pe of Ch il d Famil y Prefers 1f famil y is d is approved , _ : c h ec k- Not A ppl ic abl e.
R egis t ering agenc y d et ail s famil y ' s c h oic es for rac es of c h il d t h ey are
wil l ing t o c ons id er.
Ch ec k eac h rac e or et h nic group t h e famil y wil l ac c ept . Ch oic es are:
A meric an I nd ian/A l as kan Nat ive, A s ian, B l ac k/A fric an A meric an,
R ac e/Et h nic it y
Nat ive H awaiian/O t h er Pac ific I s l and er, Wh it e
I f et h nic it y H is panic is Yes , preferred rac es mus t al s o be ind ic at ed .
Famil ies wil l be mat c h ed wit h al l rac es c h ec ked bot h as a s ingl e rac e
or in c ombinat ion for c h il d ren wh o are more t h an one rac e.
Gend er
R egis t ering agenc y d et ail s famil y ' s c h oic e of gend er t h ey are wil l ing t o
c ons id er. Famil ' s preferenc e c h oic es are Eit h er, Femal e or Mal e.
R egis t ering agenc y d et ail s famil y ' s c h oic e for t h e number and age range
of c h il d ren) t h ey are wil l ing t o c ons id er.
Number of Ch il d ren
R ec ord famil y ' s preferred age range and ind ic at e if t h ey wil l c ons id er
&A ge R ange
a s ingl e c h il d or a s ibl ing group.
I f s ibl ing group is c h ec ked , ind ic at e maximum number of s ibl ings
famil y prefers . Th is number c annot exc eed t h e number famil y is
a roved t o s erve.
St op H ere if No Mat c h es ac e Need ed for Th is Famil y
I f Mat c h es _ are Need ed , Pl eas e Compl et e Ent ire' Form
For ad opt ive famil ies onl y : Pl eas e c h oos e from t h e c h arac t eris t ic s l is t ed t o t el l us t h e t y pe of
c h il d t h e famil want s t o ad o t . Pl ac e an X in t h e mos t a pro riat e box for eac h c h arac t eris t ic .
For eac h s t at ement , ind ic at e wit h an X if c h il d wit h t h e s pec ified
H eal t h
h eal t h c h arac t eris t ic is A c c ept abl e, s omet h ing a famil y Wil l Cons id er
or Unac c ept abl e t o t h e famil y .
A l l ques t ions mus t be ans wered .
Ed uc at ion
ed uc at ional need s is A c c ept abl e, s omet h ing a famil y Wil l Cons id er or
Unac c ept abl e t o t h e famil y .
Ch arac t eris t ic s & c h arac t eris t ic s and beh aviors is A c c ept abl e, s omet h ing a famil y Wil l
B eh aviors Cons id er or Unac c ept abl e t o t h e famil y .
Page 4 of 5
R ev. 05/10
Connections &
H istor y
For each statement, ind icate w ith an X if chil d w ith that connection
and histor y statement is Acceptabl e, something a f amil y W il l
Consid er or Unacceptabl e to the f amil y .
Al l questions must be answ er ed .
For each statement, ind icate w ith an X if chil d w ith the d escr ibed
Contact w ith B ir th contact w ith bir th f amil y statement is Acceptabl e, something a f amil y
Famil y W iil Consid er or Unacceptabl e to the f amil y .
Al l questions must be answ er ed .
~. -. .
Agency w or ker w ho is compl eting or upd ating the f or m cer tif ies that the
Agency W or ker inf or mation r ecor d ed is accur ate to the best of their know l ed ge by
si nin and d atin the f or m.
Page 5 of 5
Rev. 05/10

EXHIBIT PX-41


EXHIBIT PX-42


EXHIBIT PX-43


EXHIBIT PX-44


EXHIBIT PX-45

Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, L. I.
Cohen, M.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Cornell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
cuny
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DeWeese
DiGirolamo
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
~ P P O
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hemessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Itkin
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE 28
Masico Shaner
Masland Sheehan
* * * >\ Mayernik Smith, B.
McCall Smith, S. H.
The House proceeded to third consideration of SB 434, PN
McGeehan Snyder, D. W. 1059, entitled:
McGill Staback
Melio Stairs
Steelman
Consolidated Statutes, providing for petition for custody by grandparents.
Michlovic Steil
Micoizie Stern
Miller Stetler On the question,
Mundy Stish
Myers Strittmatter
Nailor Sturla
Nickol Suva Mr. EGOLF offered the following amendment No. A5104:
Nyce Taylor, E. 2.
O'Brien Taylor, J. Amend Title, page 1, lines 2 through 4, by striking out all of said
Olasz Thomas lines and inserting
Oliver Tigue Consolidated Statutes, defining "marriage"; and
Penel Travaglio adding provisions relating to same sex marriages.
Pesci Trello
Petrarca Trich
Amend Bill, page 1, lines 7 through 18; page 2: lines 1 through 20,
Petrone True
by striking out all of said lines on said pages and inserting
Pettit Tulli Section 1. Section 1102 of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania
Phillips Vance Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a definition t o read:
Pistella Veon Q: 1 102. Definitions.
Pitts Vitali
Platts Walko
Preston Washington
i
Ramos Waugh
* * *
Raymond Williams I
Readshaw Wogan by - a n h o ~ ~ ma n
Reber Wozniak
Reinard Wright, D. R. t * *
Rieger Wright, M. N.
1
Robinson Yewcic
4
Roebuck Youngblood
Rohrer Zimmerman v w h e r e b v d e c l a r e d t o h e t h e ~
nfthis(lammQmealt-
Rooney zug
e m -
Rubley
w m q w m ,
Rudy RY an, intainanotherstate-ilurisdic..on.-d 1
Donatucci Lescovitz Sainato Speaker
Druce Levdansky Santoni Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
NAY S-O
NOT VOTING4
Kirkland Roberts Tangretti Van Home
Farmer Mihalich
affirmative, the question was determined in the affirmative and the
bill passed finally.
1 On the question,
The SPEAKER. The House will come to order.
This is an amendment that in some quarters might be
considered controversial. You had better listen.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Egolf.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman yield.
The House will come to order.
Conferences on the floor will please break up; conferences on
the floor will please break up.
The gentleman, Mr. Egolf, would you advise the Chair whether
you are offering 5 104 or 5425.
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is 5425.
I
i
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN I
The SPEAKER. Amendment A5 104 is withdrawn.
On the quesrion recurring,
I
7
1 70 percent - 68 percent to be exact - of Americans are opposed to
I On the question,
I
I
-
I Mr. EGOLF offered the following amendment No. A5425:
m e n d Title, page 1, line 2, by inserting after "M
defining "marriage"; adding provisions relating to
same sex marriages; and
Section Section 102 of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania
consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a definition to read:
was entered
i n t a i - . . . ' 'u*-ifvald bm
e void-
Section 3. Section 53 13 of Title 23 is amended to read:
A
same-sex marriages.
As our U.S. Supreme Court said in 1885 and Justice Scalia
recently reiterated in Romer v. Evans, quote, "Certahly no
For example, legalizing same-sex marriages would place
another unfunded mandate on our business community. Any
existing pension or insurance program providing benefits to a
spouse would now have to include an entirely new supply of
so-called spouses. The providers of these benefits would have to
assume a liability they never conceived when the promise was
made. To avoid these new liabilities, providers would have to
cancel and rewrite the agreements, and future agreements might
even delete the coverage of spouse and family that Pennsylvania
workers have come to depend on.
The burden on the public sector could be great as well. In
recognizing same-sex marriages, courts would also have to hear all
same-sex divorce suits. This will only compound the backlog of
cases in our judicial system. Social Security, tax, and other benefits
presently conferred on spouses would have to be expanded to
include married partners of the same sex. The financial costs
imposed on society by the forced recognition of same-sex marriage
cannot even be calculated at this time.
Ours is a democratic form of government. Do you want a
group of judges in Hawaii determining Pennsylvania's laws and
policies? If the people of Pennsylvania want us to change our
marriage laws, we have the legislative process to do that. However,
I do not believe that they want to do that at this time. A CNN/USA
Today poll taken in March of this year indicated that nearly
Mr. Egolf.
Mr. Speaker, according to Article IV, section 1, of the
U.S. Constitution, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each
State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every
other State." This means that, generally, if a marriage is valid
where it is performed, it is valid everywhere.
However, there are exceptions to the full faith and credit
clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that every State is
entitled to enforce its own statutes in its own courts, and not every
statute from another State will override a conflicting statute in
Pennsylvania. In the case of marriage, the exception allows States
not to recognize marriages if they are repugnant to the public
policy of the home State.
-
Since no State has ever recognized same-sex marriages before,
the question has never come before the courts. If and when the
question comes to Pennsylvania courts, we want to remove any
potential confusion and misinterpretation. This amendment
introduced by Representative Maitland and myself specifically
states what our policy is and always has been -that these so-called
marriages are contray to our public policy and will not be
recognized in Pennsylvania.
f i i s amendment does not take anything away from anyone that
they now have. It is simply an expression of Pennsylvania's
traditional and longstanding policy of moral opposition to
same-sex marriages, as described by DeSanto v. Barnsley,
Pennsylvania Superior Court. 1984, and support of the traditional
family unit. In addition, this amendment serves many other
Practical purposes for the Commonwealth of today and the future.
legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the
founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank
as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks
to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting
in and springing from the union for life of one man and one
woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all
that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of
that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent
progress in social and political improvement," end quote.
I urge you to vote "yes" on this amendment. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Philadelphia, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 19- Mr. Speaker, would Mr. Egolf
submit to interrogation ?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman indicates he will stand for
interrogation. You may begin.
Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 1996, you introduced HB 2604,
which is identical to this amendment. On May 22, 1996, the
U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Romer v. Evans - and you have
referred to the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia in that case -
said that laws restricting the rights of homosexuals are valid only
if they bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate
legislative end. Are you familiar with the majority opinion of that
decision ?
Mr. EGOLF. Somewhat, yes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr: Speaker, the decision called for a rational
relationship ro an independent and legitimate legislative end.
I
--
Would you care to explain what you think is the legitimate
legislative end that this amendment serves ?
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, I think that is the moral anc
economic- That is the consequences and implications of the
moral aspect of that - and economic.
Mr. COHEN. Moral and economic aspects, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. EGOLF. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. COHEN. Well, Mr. Speaker, is there any law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requiring businesses to offer
benefits to spouses now ?
Mr. EGOLF. There is no law that requires that that I am aware
of.
Mr. COHEN. And there is no law requiring it to homosexual
spouses, is there ?
Mr. COHEN. Would the legislature not have to pass a law
extending the benefit to homosexual partners and requiring that
businesses offer this in order for them to be so required ?
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is not a l&w, but it has been
common practice for employers to offer special benefits to spouses
at work.
Mr. COHEN. There is no law requiring employers to offer
benefits to spouses.
Mr. COHEN. And there is no law in Pennsylvania saying that
you have to offer the same thing to homosexuals as you offer to
nonhomosexuals, is there ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is correct, as far as I am aware.
Mr. COHEN. Well, homosexuals are not a protected class
under Pennsylvania law or under Federal law, are they ?
Mr. EGOLF. I am sony; I did not hear that fust part.
Mr. COHEN. Homosexuals are not a protected class-
Mr. COHEN. -under Federal law.
Mr. Speaker, will this amendment stop homosexuals from
living with each other?
Mr. EGOLF. No, this would not.
having sexual relations with each other?
Mr. COHEN. Will this amendment stop people from becoming
homosexuals ?
having exclusive relationships with each other and not having
sexual relationships with others ?
Mr. EGOLF. It would not do that. All it does is prevent a
marriage or the recognition of marriage from another State.
Mr. COHEN. Is it safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that your concern
is not with the effect that this has on homosexuals but with the
economic well-being of businesses that offer benefits? Your
concern is with the effect on businesses, not with the effect on
homosexuals ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is part of it. It is also to protect the
institution of marriage as we have it now.
Mr. COHEN. And the institution of marriage that we have now
is concerned with heterosexuals. obviously.
Mr. Lynch, would you like to answer-
Mr. EGOLF. Would you say the question again, please ?
POINT OF ORDER 1
I
Mr. COIFEN. Mr. Speaker, could you repeat that ? I could not
hear you.
Mr. EGOLF. Would you repeat the question, please.
Mr. COHEN. Okay.
i
Mr. Speaker, your concern in offering this amendment is
1 primarily the effect that this has on businesses which offer
benefits, and secondarily, the effect that this may have, that
, homosexual marriages may have, on heterosexuals.
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this is for several
reasons. One is that I feel that we have a legislative process in
Pennsylvania. We should not let the judges in another State
determine our State policy. If the people in our State want a
change, we have the process to do it. That is part of it. And of
course, the other is, if we recognize or if we are forced to
recognize because of another State, if we are forced to recognize
same-sex marriages, this would put an unfunded mandate on our
businesses, another burden on our taxpayers, and so on. So these
are also peripheral reasons.
Mr. COHEN. Okay. Well, we have agreed, though, it is not a j
mandate; it is a custom. There is no State mandate requiring the
1
offering of the benefits in the fust place. We have agreed on that.
I
Mr. Speaker, do you expect that if we do not pass this
\
Mr. LYNCH. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Lynch.
!
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have not finished my
interrogation.
The gentleman, Mr. Lynch, raises a point of order. What is
113
your point of order ?
Mr. LYNCH. Well, I will tell you, I am not quite sure what the
point of order is; however, I believe that the minority chair has
really become argumentative in this interrogation and has gone
past the point of seeking factual information from the sponsor of
the amendment and is now looking for judgmental information. 1
do not believe that that is the purpose of an interrogation. He is not
nat think that is appropriate.
The SPEAKER. I hesitate to say this; I disagree with you,
sticking to the facts; he is looking for judgmental information. I do I
though. As I have listened to the gentleman, Mr. Cohen, I think he
amendment, some or many heterosexuals in Pennsylvania will
become homosexuals ?
Mr. EGOLF. I think these questions you are asking, the answer
is obvious. Just look; it is a very short amendment. All it does is
require us to not recognize same-sex marriages that are performed
in another State or performed in Pennsylvania. That is all the
amendment does, and what it does is redefine and clarify our
longstanding policy in Pennsylvania. That is all it does. It is that
simple.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, do you believe-
Conferences on the floor, please go to one of the chambers
'
outside of the House, outside of the floor of the House.
1 1996 LEGISLATIVE
is within the bounds of interrogation, but I will listen more closely.
I ~ n d I do not usually side with the gentleman, Mr. Cohen, but,
I Mr. Cohen, you go ahead.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, 1Mr. Speaker, for that nonpartisan
('? ruling.
(
The SPEAKER. Everyone is entitled to one.
Mr. COHEN. I think I have gotten more than that from you,
sir.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is your view that this amendment is not
designed to benefit the vast majority of Pennsylvanians; it just is
a very simple, narrow purpose.
Mr. EGOLF. It is designed to benefit the vast majority of
pennsylvanians, because the large majority do not want our
traditional marriage institution and our state of morals to be
changed. That has been shown in a scientific poll.
Mr. COHEN. So it is a majority sentiment against changing
morals that also motivates you, not just saving money for
business ?
Mr. EGOLF. Oh, certainly.
I have no further questions of the gentleman. I would like to
speak.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely politically
charged issue, and therefore, I am not going to make any
recommendations on how anybody ought to vote. I believe,
however, that Mr. Egolf has not stated a reason under the majority
opinion of Romer v. Evans why this is a rational State policy.
Mr. Egolf, the prime sponsor of this legislation, when he kept
the exact same wording of this legislation that was drafted before
the Romer v. Evans decision, after the Romer v. Evans decision,
which was the frst case in the history of the United States at a
Supreme Court level to specifically recognize that homosexuals
have some constitutional rights as homosexuals, the prime sponsor
of this bill made the judgment that that Supreme Court decision
was irrelevant to this issue. Whether it is irrelevant or not is
subject, of course, to the judgment of the Federal courts.
I would like to read some quotes from the majority opinion
supported by seven of the nine judges on the Supreme Court, all
the judges except Rehnquist - I am sony - all the judges except
Scalia and Thomas, which I think indicates that this case is of
some relevance. I also think that this is obviously an issue that is
going to be litigated all around the country and that Pennsylvania's
courts and the third circuit courts are among the most liberal courts
I in the country, and I am not certain that Mr. Egolf is going to be
very happy about providing an easy vehicle for the Pennsylvania
district courts and the third circuit Federal courts to express their
opinions and seek to influence the U.S. Supreme Court on this. But
in any case, you know, the U,S. Supreme Court is going to be
voting on it, and Pennsylvania courts and third circuit courts now
will have, assuming this amendment becomes law, an opportunity
to express their opinions.
The Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans said, and I am just
reading excerpts, "Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a
solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the
Private and governmental spheres," under Amendment 2 of the
Colorado Constitution. That is the same situation that we have
JOURNAL - HOUSE 2019
" 'If the adverse impact on the disfavored class' " -which is
homosexuals - " 'is an apparent aim of the legislature' " - the
Supreme Court said in the majority opinion - " 'its impartiality
would be suspect.' "
" 'Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through
indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.' "
"Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a
certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general
hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more
difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid
from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the
laws in the most literal sense."
"We must conclude" - the 7-2 majority said - ''that
Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper
legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This
Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a
stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection
Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is
affirmed." That was the U.S. Supreme Court about 5 weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an issue that has not yet
come before us. in any real sense. We are expediting, in my
judgment, the Federal courts dealing with this issue, which is
totally the opposite of Mr. Egolf s wishes on this matter.
I personally intend to vote against this bill, because I have
doubts about its constitutionality. I have doubts about whether it
meets the goals set forth by the Supreme Court. I personally
believe that the overwhelming majority of all homosexuals are
biological homosexuals, that there are no significant number of
people in this society who are on the fence and who are asking
themselves every day, gee, should I be a heterosexual or should I
be a homosexual?
I personally think that homose-xuals are, with very, very few
exceptions, a separate and discreet group of people. I do not
believe that the institution of marriage in any meaningful sense is
affected by this. I do not believe any children are going to be
corrupted by the fact that homosexuals are living together and call
themselves married, and therefore, I personally am voting against
this piece of legislation.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny County,
Mr. Pistella.
I was wondering if the gentleman would stand for an
interrogation, please ?
The SPEAKER. Which gentleman ?
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Egolf - I am sony -the prime sponsor of
the amendment.
The SPEAKER. Mr. Egolf will stand for interrogation. You
may begin.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to follow the discussion of the
Supreme Court case that was made reference to by both of the
previous speakers in the interrogation, Romer v. Evans. My
question is this, Mr. Speaker: I am looking at your amendment,
which appears to do two things. First of all, it will defme what a
marriage is, constituting a contract civilly between a man and a
woman. The second provision, however, deals with marriages
between persons of the same sex and whether or not those
- -
marriages that take place in other States will be honored here in
Pennsylvania. Is that correct, sir?
Now, my question is this: I am noi familiar with the language
of the Supreme Court case that you use upon which to draft this,
but I am wondering, the language of the Supreme Court case
would allow States to determine whether or not they would wish
to ban same-sex marriages. Is that accurate ?
Mr. EGOLF. My understanding is, there is no Supreme Court
case on that subject.
Mr. PISTELLA. I am sony. Could you give me one moment,
please.
I am sony. If you could please repeat the answer now.
I am sony ? Would you want me to repeat the question again ?
,Mr. EGOLF. Yes, would you repeat the question. I did not hear
the last part.
Mr. PISTELLA. Yes.
The language contained in the Supreme Court decision, which
obviously is the basis that you are using to craft this particular
amendment, said what as it relates to what the States can do in
regard to same-sex marriages ? What is it that States can do ?
Mr. EGOLF. It says if it is repugnant to our public policy, then
we do not have to recognize it. Now, that is my- Excuse me, sir.
That is not a Supreme Court decision; that is our own
Pennsylvania Superior Court decision.
Mr. PISTELLA. Now, I am making reference to the case of
Romer v. Evans. Now, is Romer v. Evans a Pennsylvania
Supreme Court case or a U.S. Supreme Court case ?
Mr. EGOLF. My understanding is that Romer v. Evans was-
That was not on the case of same-sex marriages. That is the case
that took away the rights, was concerning taking away the rights
of homosexuals in Colorado.
Mr. PISTELLA. Which precipitated the recent Supreme Court
decision as to what basis States can use to determine what rights
will be granted or taken away from homosexuals. Is that-
Mr. EGOLF. I think the answer to that, what you are asking, is
that since this has not been a question until this point, there has not
been a case on same-sex marriages. So the Romer v. Evans was a
different case. That took away all rights of homosexuals. But there
has been no case on marriage, same-sex marriage.
Mr. PISTELLA. Okay. Let me ask the question this way, and
I am trying to work through.
My understanding is that the Supreme Court in the case of
Romer v. Evans has said that there is a certain standard which is
referred to as the "rational-basis standard" that States must use in
determining if the laws that they are going to enact will have an
adverse effect on the rights of classes of people; in this case, the
class of people being homosexuals. The rational-basis test is there
has to be a rational relationship to the State's end that it wishes to
achieve when it enacts this act in taking certain rights away from
homosexual people. Is that correct, sir?
Mr. EGOLF. That is correct as far as I know. That is right.
Mr. PISTELLA. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Now, my next question is this: As it relates to the full faith and
credit act or the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of
the United States as it relates to this particular case, was there any
language in that decision that has an effect on the full faith and
credit clause of the Constitution in terns of what can
7
Pennsylvanians do in recognizing or not recognizing those Qpes
of same-sex marriages that take place in other States ?
Mr. EGOLF. This amendment was drawn up to satisfy both the
Romer v. Evans and the full faith and credit, the clause that says
1
we would have to recognize unless it is longstanding policy or '
repugnant to our public policy. So it was drafted to fit both of
those requirements.
Mr. PISTELLA. But are both of those requirements addressed
in Romer v. Evans, or is there a separate case addressing the issue
of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution other than
Romer v. Evans ?
Mr. EGOLF. Commonwealth v. Custer in Pennsylvania.
Mr. PISTELLA. One moment, sir. Commonwealth v. Custer (
is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, or is it a United States i
Supreme Court decision ?
If the gentleman, Mr. Pistella, knows the answers to these
questions, then it is not a legitimate subject of interrogation, and
the hour is getting late.
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Speaker, if I may. The answer to the
question is, I do not know the answer. I realize the purpose of
interrogation is to elicit answers to questions to which we do not
know the answers. I do not, sir. I am not attempting to be
argumentative.
The SPEAKER. Allright.
Mr. PISTELLA. I am simply suggesting, I do not know. The
gentleman is saying that this amendment has been drafted to
address two issues. Obviously the one that I am addressing now is
the issue of full faith and credit of the United States Constitution.
I can very simply make a motion it is unconstitutional precipitating
another vote; I would rather hear what the gentleman has to say.
It may be appropriate to divide this amendment if it is proper,
Mr. Speaker, and have the members vote on it at that time. I am
not attempting to be obstructionist, but I think we do have a
responsibility, as you have pointed out on previous occasions,
Mr. Speaker, to our constituents, and that is what 1 am attempting
to do. I apologize if it takes a long time.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect.
The SPEAKER. Of course.
I am sony, sir. The question I had was, when crafting this, was
this to address the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution by
virtue of another U.S. Supreme Court case ?
Mr. EGOLF. No, it was not.
Mr. PISTELLA. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
Mr. Speaker, on that point, if I may, I would suggest that we
4
could have one of two options: either address the issue of
constitutionality of the question. I agree with what Mr. Egolf has
said about the language of the first portion of the amendment being
appropriate under the Supreme Court decision. I think he has
admitted, however, that the other language contained in here does
not meet Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. constitution's
full faith and credit clause and would suggest for the gentleman I t
may be appropriate to either divide the amendment or to withdraw ' k
it, have it redrafted and submit it so it is constitutional.
I
The SPEAKER. For the information of the gentleman, the
amendment is not divisible.
i
Egolf amendment A5425 is unconstitutional. The Speaker, under
rule 4, is required to submit questions affecting the
constitutionality of an amendment to the House for decision. The
1 1996
LEGISLATIW JOURNAL - HOUSE
I Chair now does that.
C
CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF ORDER
Mr. PISTELLA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.
Then I would raise the question of constitutionality that the
latter portion of the Egolf amendment does not meet the
il united States Constitution's full faith and credit clause.
i
Mr. EGOLF. Mr. Speaker, may I respond to that? I do not
know if it is a question or not, but-
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is-
The SPEAKER. The gentlemen, both gentlemen, yield.
I
The gentleman, Mr. Pistella, raises the point of order that the
1 On the question,
I Will the House sustain the constitutionality of the
1 amendment?
Battisto Gannon
Bebko-Jones Geist
Belardi George
Belfmti Gigliotti
Birmelin Gladeck
Blaum Godshall
Boscola Gordner
Boyes Gruitza
Brown G ~ ~ P P O
Browne Habay
Bunt Haluska
Butkovitz Hanna
CaItagirone Harhart
Cappabianca Hasay
1 The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman,
/ Mr. Egolf.
Mr. Egolf, did you seek recognition on this point?
Mr. EGOLF. Well, on the constitutionality, this was drafted to-
be constitutional on all grounds.
The SPEAKER. Mr. Pistella is recognized.
Mr. PISTELLA. Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the
General Assembly have heard; I asked the question directly of the
prime sponsor if this in fact was drafted to meet the constitutional
standard of United States Supreme Court decisions addressing the
issue of the full faith and credit clause. Earlier in his presentation,
he said it was. When I asked him for the specific case, he
in fact said that it had not been. He did cite a Pennsylvania
Carone Haste
Cawley Hennessey
Chadwick Herman
Civera Hershev
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, L.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Cornell
Corpora
COY
Daley
Hess
Horsey
I. Hutchinson
Jadlowiec
Jarolin
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Krebs
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Durham
Egolf
Fairchild
Bishop
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Lloyd
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Me w
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pitts
Platts
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
Sather
DeWeese Michlovic
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W
Staback
Stairs
Steil
Stem
Stish
Strittmatter
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Vitali
Walk0
Waugh
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
RY an,
Speaker
Steelman
amendment that is being offered at this time is in fact
unconstitutional under the United States Constitution's full faith
and credit clause.
On the question before the House, those voting "aye" will vote
to declare the amendment to be constitutional; those voting "no"
will vote to declare the amendment to be unconstitutional. The
question is on the question of constitutionality.
3
amendment ?
Supreme Court case which I think, under the circumstances, would
not be appropriate.
I would suggest that under those circumstances, this
BUXtOn Evans Myers Stetler
Cam Itkin Oliver Sturla
Cohen, M. James Pistella Thomas
conigm Josephs Preston Veon
Adolph
e
Fajt Lucyk Saylor
Allen Fargo Lynch Schroder
Argall Feese Maitland Schuler
.Armstrong Fichter Major Scrimenti
Baker Fleagle Markosrk Semmel
Bard Flick Marsico Seratini
Barley Gamble Masland Shaner
coweil Levdansky Ramos Washington
curry
Manderino Roebuck Williams
Dermody
NOT VOTRJG-1
Kirkland
EXCUSED-2
Farmer Mihalich
The majority having voted in the affirmative, the question was
determined in the affirmative and the constitutionality of the
amendment was sustained.
gentleman, Mr. Gamble.
something that has not been put before this body for review.
Secondarily, on the question of the full faith and credit clause I
REMARKS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
I
i
of the United States - and if I am mistaken, then, please, someone
correct me - the issue came up before the courts in Hawaii. Under
the full faith and credit clause, there is no automatic application to
Pennsylvania. There are circumstances under which Pennsylvania
will have to consider whether or not to accept a ruling of the courts
in Hawaii, and until such time we are faced with a situation where
we have to accept a mandate or accept a proscription of another
State, then I think it is also premature to address this issue.
And last but not least, on the question of whether or not we
need to reaffirm the institution of marriage in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Speaker, I would just argue that the
institution ofmarriage is not under attack statutorily, regulatorily,
or by case law, and until such time that the institution of marriage
is under attack in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, then it is
equally premature for us to address this issue.
I think that it be for me to offer a
legislative proscription for something that I suspect that the
speaker might do sometime in the future, because sometime in the
future, a series of circumstances can change the speaker's position
and thereby preclude or put the speaker in a position where he or
she might not want to engage in particular conduct.
So I think that we are stretching it a little bit much in trying to
offer a legislative proscription for something that has not even
occurred. The institution of marriage is sound and sits on solid
ground in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore, we
do not need to reaffirm that institution.
It is my understanding that Independence Blue Cross, just a
little while ago, created a situation where benefits could be
Mr. STERN. Mr. Speaker, 1 rise in support of the 1
Egolf amendment, and for the sake of time and clarity, I would
like to submit my remarks for the record.
The SPEAKER. Very good.
The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. STERN submitted the following remarks for the
Legislative Journal:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Egolf amendment to SB 434. I
believe that it is imperative that we in Pennsylvania should stand up for
traditional marriage for the benefit of families and children in the
Commonwealth and our future. What began in Hawaii from the
Commission on Sexual Orientation and their recommendation as a denial
of baric human rights under their Constitution by five unelected
individuals has spurred the debate on same-sex marriages.
The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution
if;)
would force ~ennsylvania to recognize same-sex marriages in
Pennsylvania because of a liberal court ruling in Hawaii. Pennsylvani%
if need be, needs to reemphasize Pennsylvania's current policy that
marriage is a fundamental institution in a civil society between a man and
a woman. We should not allow a decision in another State that has been
determined by an appellate court to dictate what we must abide by here In
the Commonwealth. In this day and age, we hear much rhetoric and :.
discussion on family This is a vote about family values and
naditional beliefs, and we should all support the amendment,
,4]so, for the record, I would like to submit a statement by the Hawaii ,
Catholic Conference on the Report of the Commission on sexual
Orientation and the law dated December 13. 1995:
!
2022
Mr. GAMBLE. I rise to support this amendment. I never
thought in my 20 years that I would be voting on such an
amendment.
There has been a lot of talk this week on how I have voted on
several issues this week and previous weeks, and you can say what
you want about me but you cannot say that I am inconsistent,
because I am going to vote against Democratic leadership again by
voting for this amendment. And as usual, it is an embarrassment
to me to have somebody from this party stand up to take that
position on statewide television, and with leaders like that, you are
going to be voting on a lot of Republican budgets because you are
so out of touch with the people of this State.
Just to sum it up, I just thank God I am going back to Oakdale,
where men are men and women are women, and believe me, boys
and girls, there is one heck of a difference.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Thomas.
Mr. THOMAS. Can I move that those remarks be stricken fkom
the record ?
On this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the
amendment, and I oppose the amendment for the following
reasons.
Number one, the amendment is not right for review. This body
nor the courts, to the best of my knowledge, have been confronted
with the question of whether or not benefits and/or other
opportunities should be extended to same-sex marriages or
same-sex relationships, and until such time that this issue comes
before the General Assembly by way of a legislative proscription
or some other proscription, then I think it is premature to preclude
extended to same-sex relationships, and there are no laws in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that prevent Independence
Blue Cross or any other member of the private sector from
providing such benefits under those very select circumstances. so
we do not need to come up with a legislative proscription to stop
something that the private sector can do anytime that it wants. .
And therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is probably time for
us to move on to other business and deal with this issue,
Mr. Speaker, when the time arises. But it is not yet right for
review, for us in this very august body, and so I rise in opposition,
and I ask that members from both sides of the aisle join me in that I
opposition. Thank you.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Stem, from the county of
Blair.
Mr. STERN. Mr. Speaker, on -the amendment, I would
like to read something: "In 1885, the Supreme Court" - we heard
about Supreme Court decisions here today - "In 1885, the
Supreme Court felt so strongly that marriage was to be protected
I
that it declared it as a requirement for admission of new states to
the Union. Any prospective state, the court said, had to have law
resting 'on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and
springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the
holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable
and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent
morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social
and political improvement.' "
1996 LEGISL
/
On Pearl Harbor Day, 1995, the State of
Hawaii was attacked. This time the target was
not a military base, but the State itself. Five
unelected individuals, sitting on a commission,
decided that government should forcibly
redefine the institution of marriage.
No government on planet earth has done
this, and none should. The five individuals
think it would be a great idea. As citizens, as
neighbors, and as Catholics, we strongly
disagree.
Marriage between a man and a woman is
the fundamental institution of civil society. It is
the basis for healthy individuals, a peaceful
community, and responsible citizenship.
Government cannot simply "redefine" it. This
commission is directly attacking our most
crucial institution.
We are not fooled by the rhetoric of "civil
rights" and "equality." Hawaii is a very
tolerant State. The Catholic Church has
strongly supported civil rights. We are publicly
committed to a pluralistic society with liberty
and justice for all.
This commission, however, is up to
something very different. In the name of
"equality" for individuals, it seeks to redefine
marriage as an institution. This mixes apples
and oranges. Every individual is equal before
the law, and rightfully so. But marriage is not
a creation of the law; it precedes the law.
Religion, Catholic or otherwise, did not
create the institution of marriage. Nor did the
State. Neither can simply "redefine" marriage,
and both should be wise enough to know this.
Just as we have learned to respect the natural
ecology of our island State, we should respect
its social ecology as well.
What are the lessons of marriage which
have been given to us ? There are at least four.
First, children enter society through the union
of a man and a woman, not just a sperm and an
egg. This is obvious! A sperm bank is not the
equivalent of a real father. The people of
Hawaii know that our children are our future.
If children are not a "compelling interest" of
the State, what i s?
Second, a commmed, faithful and lifelong
relationship between a woman and a man is the
best environment for children. Every child
deserves a stable home with her real mother
and father. Single parents can raise children
well through heroic efforts, yet they know,
perhaps better than anyone. that there is a
difference. We all know the results when stable
families begir. to break down: disoriented
children. domestic violence, and increased
crime.
Third, a formal commitment between a
man and a woman encourages them to take
joint responsibility for their children and for
each other. Marriage IS a formal commitment.
made in the presence of soclety. Because thls
commitment I S essential to ourbiolog~cal and
soclal future, it is preserved, protected. and
The SPEAKER. The Chai r recognizes t he gent l eman from
Warren Count y, Mr. Lynch, for t he second t i me on t he issue.
I
I would like t o interrogate t he sponsor of t he amendment .
(ATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE 2023
promoted by the law of the State. The law of
marriage connects sex, commitment, and
children. It holds parents responsible for
supporting and educating their children, both
within marriage and even if a marriage breaks
down. If the law redefines marriage and sends
a message that marriage has no relationship to
sex, commitment, or children, it will only add
to our current troubles, and undermine what
health still remains.
Fourth, these benefits to society are only
made possible and reach their greatest fruition
because of the obvious complementary natures
of a woman and a man. The relationship
between a man and a woman is special and
beneficial to both the individuals in the
relationship and to society as a whole. Man and
woman, equal yet different, complement one
another, and in marital love humanize and
civilize each other and society. No same-sex
relationship can mimic the genuine potential of
a relationship between a woman and a man.
Nor ,should society expect it to through
governmental fiat.
The Catholic Church does not believe that
the citizens of Hawaii must choose between
liberty, privacy, and equality. We have a
tradition of protecting individual liberties. We
respect the private choices of others, even if we
disagree with them. We treat each individual
with equal rights and dignity before the law. To
use these great traditions of our people to
attack the crucial institution of marriage is to
treat our people as a group of fools. To pretend
that same-sex relationships are on the same
level as the institution of marriage not only
goes against the facts, but also denigrates the
men and women who make their special
contribution to society through their marriages.
We know the difference between males
and females. We know the difference between
individuals and institutions. We know the
difference between friendships and marriages.
We know the difference between tolerance and
endorsement. We know the difference between
"broadening" and redefinition. No government
commission can change reality.
We call upon the legislature to reject this
report as a direct attack on the institution of
marriage. We call upon our fellow citizens,
including our Catholic brothers and sisters, to
make their voices heard in the halls of
government. And our voice must be clear: We
are not fooled by this report.
The Church did not define marriage, but it
will defend it. To our neighbors and public
officials, we say, "Give marriage the justice it
deserves. Do not redefine marriage. Respect
marriage!"
2024 LEGISLATIVE
The SPEAKER. You may begin.
Mr. LYNCH. I heard a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, and I want
to make sure we get this perfectly clear.
This amendment, fust off, does recognize that there is a
traditional marriage concept in Pennsylvania. Is that not true ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is true.
Mr. LYNCH. Now, a prior speaker has indicated that we
should maybe do this when the time is right to do it. But is it not
a fact that other States, if they pass a law which is not in
accordance with the traditional marriage concept in Pennsylvania,
that that law could be carried over into our State and that
Pennsylvania would have to recognize that State's -that State's -
value of marriage ?
Mr. EGOLF. That is correct; it could, it could. The idea of this
is to clarify our policy here so that it will not be vague: it will be
very strong and help the courts, if it comes to a court case, to
establish that we have a strong law and a strong policy in place.
A brief comment on the amendment.
I think that we need to do this to continue to be able to enforce
the traditional marriage concept in Pennsylvania, and I strongly
urge that we all vote in the affirmative on this amendment.
The Chair recognizes the lady from Montgomery County,
Mrs. Cohen.
Mrs. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Egolf amendment.
VOTE CORRECTION
Mrs. COHEN. First, I must ask that the record be corrected.
My switch malfunctioned on the motion for constitutionality. As
an attorney, I certainly believe that this amendment is highly
unconstitutional.
What we are talking about, so many times here in this body, are
family values, love, togetherness, parents and children together.
What this amendment does is say to the world that we are against
families, parents with children. I believe that what this amendment
does is penalize children of such unions. They wilI not be entitled
to certain benefits that children of unions between a man and a
woman would be entitled to. The general message that this
amendment states is really one of bigotry and one of hatred. It has
nothing to do with whether or not we are in favor of same-sex
marriages.
I think it is interesting and I think that I am correct that in
Pennsylvania fust cousins are not allowed to marry. If that is true
- and I think it is -just as a rhetorical question and not in the form
of interrogation of the maker of the amendment, but will
Pennsylvania's next step be to deny marriages between two first
cousins that occur in another State and therefore deny benefits to
the people, the man and the woman of such a union, and certainly
the children ?
I would really rather not deal with this amendment at all, but,
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we are sending a message not that
we are opposed to unions, to same-sex unions, but that I truly
believe this is a bigoted statement, this is a statement that is against
family values, is very much contrary to family values and to the
1
love and warmth and affection that we constant!^ espouse among
family members.
So therefore, I would urge my fellow Representatives to vote
"no" on this, and it is a message, by voting "no," that indeed we
are in favor of whole families.
I
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Thomas, for the second
time.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Very quickly, just in response to the citing of an 1885 law that
was cited in terms of what the Supreme Court said.
Let us not forget that it was no more than 100 years ago that
the Supreme Court, in 1896, in the Dred Scott case, determined
that African-Americans were not whole people. Let us not forget
that it was less than 100 years ago that the Supreme Court, that
many courts determined that white and black should not be
married or that it would be against the law for interracial marriages
to take place.
So things have changed, they have changed, and we need not
go back to 1895 to determine whether or not this issue that is
before us, whether this issue is right for review at this particular
time. The issue is not right for review. We are not confronted with
the question of whether or not same-sex marriages should exist or
not exist in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, nor are we
confronted with the issue of whether or not the institution of
marriage is sacred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
We are not confronted with those questions, and therefore, I
urge members from both sides to vote "no" on the Egolf
amendment, and let us move on. At some point maybe in the
future we will have an opportunity to deal with this question, but 1
it is not right for review right now.
I
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Dr. King.
Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Several of the members have spoken out against this particular
issue, and I find disagreement in the sense that the marriage
tradition and the sanctity of our marriage is not under attack across
the land, and I agree with the sponsor of the amendment that we do
have a right to bring this issue to this body and at this time.
I think that we need to say to ourselves, if not now, when ? And
what are we trying to say? Are we trying to say that because there
are scientific changes in the community, that there might be in
some fashion offspring of this union, that we are so to say to these
people that the sanctity of marriage as we understand it is to be
voided ?
I would say to you that it is time for us now to speak out for
those values that have brought us to this great ~ommonwealth
through the past, whether it has been a reinstatement of a court
case from the 1800's to this day, that today's values will be
tomorrow's future here in Pennsylvania.
I
~ d o l ~ h
Allen
.Algal1
ms t r ong
Baker
~ a r d
~ a r l e ~
Battist0
Bebko-Jones
~el ardi
elfa anti
~irmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
~u t k o v i t ~
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Comell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
1 Dermody
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
1 Druce
Durham
Egolf
Fairchild
Fajt
Far go
Feese
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
Gruppo
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Jadlowiec
Jarolin
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Krebs
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Lloyd
Lucyk
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Meny
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
OIasz
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pitts
Platts
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
Sather
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimeilti
Semmel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. 2.
Taylor, J.
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Waugh
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Zimmerman
z ug
RY an,
Speaker
Cam Evans Michlovic Roebuck
Cohen, L. I. Itkin Oliver Thomas
Cohen, M. Josephs Pistella Williams
C U ~ Y Manderino - Preston Youngblood
NOT VOTING-8
Deweese Kirkland Myers Stetler
James Kukovich Ramos Washington
EXCUSED-:!
Fanner Mihalich
The majority having voted in the afi rmat i ve, t he question was
determined in t he affirmative and t he amendment was agreed to.
On t he question,
Will t he House agree t o t he bill on t hi rd consideration as
amended ?
Amend Title, page 1, line 3, by inserting after ' ' -
income and for
and inserting
Section i. The definition of "income" in section 4302 of Title 23
Aragencv. mmmm+p&
. .
anv b d v . a
. . .
2-
* * *
similar items; income derived from business; gains derived from dealings
compensation; or o t h e r m n t s t o m o n e y or 1-awards,
* * *
e x i s t - with
* * *
Section 2. Sections 4304, 4345,4348(0) and 53 13 of Title 23 are
amended to read:
. .
tj 4304. Cooperation of Commonwealth agencies - .
(&Cmpah~oo~eratlonofCDmmonwealth-Upon request of the
Department of Public Welfare on behalf of a domestic relations section,
other provisions of law.] a f i
, .
S a c i a S e c u S / u u m b e r a n d W the 7
a o h o n e n u m b e r o y ~ e r s o n ' s -
. .
i s k n o ~ y A e A 2 m m m w e a g e n c ~
. .
r e m a l n c o n t i d e n t l a l with F -
a b l a i u e d b K a - d n m e s t i c ~ t hi s
- .
Ue d - r n-
. .
o f c h i l d . s u p p a d ~ c
. .
Ui l - - -
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE JUNE 28 1
-
the -addresser number
. .
over t a 7 h - w
by a - &
shall be m a n l y he uaLb the
4 4345. Contempt for noncompliance with support order.
(a) General rule.-A person who willfully fails to comply with any
order under this chapter, except an order subject to section 4344 (relating
to contempt for failure of obligor to appear), may, as prescribed by
general rule, be adjudged in contempt. Contempt shall be punishable by
any one or more of the following:
(1) Imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months.
(2) A fine not to exceed [$500] $LM(I.
(3) Probation for a period not to exceed [six months] m
w.
(b) Condition for release.-An order committing a defendant to jail
under this section shall specify the condition the fulfillment of which will
result in the release of the obligor.
tj 4348. Attachment of income.
* * *
(0) Priority of attachment.-An order of attachment for support shall
have priority over any attachment, execution, garni shment &i t cnrl d
taxw- or wage assignment.
* * *
3
On the question,
but you cannot hide, and no matter where you are, we are going to
find you and we are going to make you pay child support that you
ought to be paying under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute sin that in Pennsylvania we rank
49th in locating absent parents, 49th in the country in locating
absent parents and making them pay their child support.
Mr. Speaker, we have approximately one-fifth of the children in
the State of Pennsylvania, 20 percent of the children in the State of
Pennsylvania, that are affected by this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I think this amendment that I have goes a long
way towards helping child support collection agencies find
deadbeat parents and make them pay their child support.
Mr. Speaker, specifically, this amendment does four things.
Number one, it provides more information sources to the child
support collection agencies in the State. Specifically, those
additional sources would be required by law, if this amendment is
successful and this bill is passed: the customer files of all public
utilities regulated by the PUC (Public Utility Commission), all
labor union organization membership information, and all
Commonwealth records, every Commonwealth record. All of that
information can and should be, by law, available to child support
collection agencies as a way to improve our ability to find
deadbeat parents. f
Mr. Speaker, the second thing that this amendment would do
is it would place child support before taxes in a support order
issued by the court, that the individual would have to pay the child
The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman,
Mr. Geist, rise ?
Mr. GEIST. If you take a look at this amendment, it is a
Title 23, and it has been drafted to three different titles in the
amendment. On the first line of the amendment, you will see it
there.
Because of that and other problems in the drafting of the
amendment, we are willing to work with the gentleman to solve
this problem, but we believe the amendment is clearly not germane
to that title.
Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. I did that to the wrong
amendment.
The SPEAKER. You withdraw your objection ?
Mr. GEIST. Yeah. It is the wrong amendment.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Veon.
Mr. VEON. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is appropriate that this amendment
follows the amendment offered by the gentleman, Mr. Egolf.
Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment that clearly is about family
values.
I think that most of the members here in the House understand
that we have a tremendous problem in the State of Pennsylvania
and in fact in almost every State in the Nation on child support
collection. We have way too many deadbeat parents who are not
paying child support to children all across this State.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will give members here an
opportunity to send a message to all Pennsylvanians, and
particularly those Pennsylvanians who have made a conscious
decision not to pay child support to the children in the State of
Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, that message should be, you can run
support by court order prior to paying his State and local taxes. I
think that part of this amendment makes it clear that this legislature
says, we should put the children of Pennsylvania first.
The third specific thing that this amendment does, Mr. Speaker,
is takes the opportunity to expand the "income" definition in
present law, and specifically, it would change the definition of
"income" to include lump-sum awards, such as personal injury
awards or out-of-State lottery winnings.
And the fourth specific thing that this amendment would do,
Mr. Speaker, is to increase the penalties for contempt for t
noncompliance of support orders from $500 to $1,000 and
lengthen probation from 6 months to 1 year.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very good amendment. It will put
this House on record of being for greater enforcement of child
support - a real family-values issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for an affirmative vote.
i
\
The SPEAKER. On the question, Mr. Gannon.
Mr. GANNON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to interrogate the sponsor of the
amendment.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will stand for interrogation.
You may begin.
Mr. GANNON. Mr. Speaker, does your amendment not require
a private nongovernmental organization to provide information to
the Department of Public Welfare ?
Mr. VEON. Mr. Speaker, specifically, I would require- If the
question is regarding labor organizations. Is that specifically the
organization the gentleman is referring to ?
Mr. GANNON. What protection is afforded to the labor union
from any civil liability for releasing this information ?
Mr. VEON. Mr. Speaker, I think they would be as ~rotected as
private companies are today. We require information from the
I
7
private sector for child support orders presently. I think they would
be as protected. I, very specifically, do not think they ought to be
exempted from any part of this amendment or from any part of the
act.
Mr. GANNON. Mr. Speaker, if this information invaded the
privacy of someone who was not involved in this Support order,
what protection would the labor union have from any civil liability
to that individual for releasing this information, under this
amendment ?
Mr. VEON. Mr. Speaker, it would be my opinion that they
would have the same protection as any other private
nongovernmental agency or company who is required to provide
information for child support collection.
Mr. GANNON. Mr. Speaker, I note here that You increase the
fine to $1,000. What happens to that $1,000 ?
Mr. VEON. Mr. Speaker, at this n~oment at a quarter to 8, my
answer would be it would go to the same place that the $500 f i e
goes to.
Mr. GANNON. Mr. Speaker, if the labor union refuses to
~rovide the information, what penalties would go against that labor
union ?
Mr. VEON. Mr. Speaker, my expectation would be with this
amendment that the same penalty would apply to labor
organizations as applies to private-sector companies under present
law.
Mr. GANNON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I may speak to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Gannon.
Mr. GANNON. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, from the answers that I elicited from the sponsor
of the amendment, it is obvious that this has a number of problems
no matter how well intended the drafter of the amendment may be.
What strikes me most about the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is
that it involves mmeone who has failed to Pay support. They have
not paid over money that they are supposed to Pay over to feed and
clothe their children, and here we are increasing the fine and not
one Penny of that $1,006 goes to the Person we are trying to
protect. As the speaker said, we put children first, and in this
amendment we are putting the courts first. That $1,000, not one
Penny of it goes to help those children get food, clothing,
education, or whatever.
Mr. Speaker, as the speaker said, that this labor organization
would have the same penalties as any other organization, that is
true; there would be none, because there are no penalties for
) failure to comply.
In addition to that, he said they would have the same liability,
civil liability, as any other private organization, and that is true.
because there are no other protections to other private
organizations. If this labor union or this public utility which is also
required to do this under this amendment, this gas company or this
electric company, this water company, if they were required to do
this;they would be liable for invasion of privacy if they provided
information on the wrong person or if they provided information
) on someone living in the same household but who is not subject to
this order as well as potentially for providing this information
without any protections in this amendment to the person who
Would be subject to the order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I ask for a "no" vote on this
amendment.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
(PATRICIA H. VANCE) PRESIDING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Williams.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
~t always strikes me as ironic when we argue for the rights of
children and their families, and then when it comes down to doing
something about it, we can figure out all sorts of reasons why we
should not do it. Well, for every reason that the gentleman might
suggest that this particular amendment is not perfect and this
amendment should provide increased protections and this
amendment should do a variety of things, even capture the person
who is not paying the support, why do we not at least pass this and
then correct that ?
The bottom line is we are not doing enough, and that is the
origin ofthe amendment, and if there is anybody in this room that
thinks we are doing more than enough to protect those children
who deserve for their parents to pay support, then you are living
in the wrong State; we are not. That is not opinion; that is fact.
This may be an incremental baby step, but at least it is a step.
Thus far, for everybody who stands up in opposition to the
amendment, I do not see a counter amendment that would say,
here is my amendment to correct that amendment, and if you are
not going to fix the problem, then do not talk about the problem.
If you are not going to be part of the solution, just get off the boat.
I think all the gentleman this evening is simply asking of us is
to be honest about where we are with regard to collection of child
support in this Commonwealth. We are miserable. We are pitiful.
We are an embarrassment. I think the gentleman suggests a
beginning, and I think he should be supported in that beginning.
We all know between this House, the Senate, and the
Governor's Office there are a variety of opportunities for the
gentleman's amendment to be corrected if people are sincere with
regard to the concerns, but we should not send a message and
cannot send a message that we think everything is all right in the
State of Pennsylvania with regard to the collection of child support
when the facts bear out that they are not.
SO if you are not going to support the amendment, then I think
you need to quickly, tonight, come up with some answers, because
when you go back to your district and someone calls - and I
recognize they do not call on a daily basis. They may call once a
month; they may call every other month; I do not know, but all of
us have faced this situation. All of us know it is ridiculous and it
puts somebody on the verge of desperate situations.
They have a right. That child who cannot vote for anyone in
this room has a right - they have the right to be taken care of.
Therefore, I stand in support of the Veon amendment. Thank you,
Madam Speaker.
gentleman from Blair, Mr. Geist.
~ r . GEIST. hank you, Madam Speaker.
We do not find this to be a bad amendment at all.
I apologize to the gentleman for jumping all over this
amendment when it was the wrong one. This is a fine amendment
in my eyes, and I thank the gentleman for being tolerant of my
mistake.
2028 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE
gentleman. Mr. Veon. for the second time. I
w
Mr. VEON. ~ a & Speaker, if we could have a moment
to discuss this? If we could be at ease for a moment,
Madam Speaker ?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be at ease for just
a moment.
Mr. VEON. Thank you.
Adolph Druce Levdansky Santoni
Allen Durham Lloyd Sather
Argall Egolf Lucyk Saylor
Armstrong Evans Major Schroder
Baker Fairchild Manderino Schuler .
f
Fajt Markosek Scrimenti
Barley Fargo Marsico Semmel
Battisto Feese Masland Serafini
Bebko-Jones Fichter Mayemik Shaner
The SPEAKER uro tempore. The Chair recognizes the I Belardi Fleagle McCall Sheehan
the gentleman, Mr. Gannon, for a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempcjre. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Delaware County, Mr. Gannon.
Mr. GANNON. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
-
gentleman, Mr. Veon, for the second time on the amendment.
Mr. VEON. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I think at the moment I would like to defer to
Madam Speaker, for the information bf the House, we have
been working on trying to reach an agreement on this particular
amendment. We do have an amendment that does the same thing
that we can amee to. What we would like to do is have Mr. Veon
Belfanti Flick McGeehan Smith, B.
Birmelin Gamble McGill Smith, S. H.
Bishop Gannon Melio Snyder, D. W.
Blaum Geist Merry Staback
1
Boscola George Michlovic Stairs , 4
Boyes Gigliotti Micozzie Stem
Brown Gladeck Miller Stetler
Browne Godshall Mundy Stish
Bunt Gordner Myers Strittmatter I
Butkovitz Gruitza Nailor Sturla
Buxton G ~ ~ P P O Nick01 Surra
Caltagirone Habay Nyce Tangretti
Cappabianca Haluska O'Brien Taylor, E. Z.
Cam Harhart Olasz Taylor, J.
. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN
withdraw this amendment and then to suspend the rules and
immediately consider the substitute amendment.
Civera Herman Petrarca True
I Clark Hershey Petrone Tulli
Clymer Hess Pettit Vance
Carone Hasay Oliver Thomas
Cawley Haste Perzel Travaglio
Chadwick Hennessey Pesci Trello
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
I would like to withdraw this amendment and allow the
gentleman, Mr. Gannon, to offer a motion to suspend the rules. I
appreciate his time and effort in helping to put together an
amendment that all the members in this House, I believe, can agree
to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The requests that the
amendment be withdrawn.
gentleman from Beaver, Mr. Veon.
Will the House agree to the b i l h n third consideration as
amended ?
Cohen, L. I. Horsey Phillips
Cohen, M.
Van Home
Hutchinson Pistella Veon
Colafella Itkin Pitts Vitali
RULES SUSPENDED
gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Gannon.
Mr. GANNON. Madam Speaker, I would like to make a
motion to suspend the rules to offer amendment 57 15.
gentleman, Mr. Gannon, who moves that the rules be suspended to
offer amendment 57 15.
On the question,
Will the House agree to the motion ?
Colaizzo
Conti
Comell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
curry
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DeWeese
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Hanna
Krebs
Lynch
Farmer
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Kirkland
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Preston
Rarnos
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
NAY S-9
Maitland Steelman
Platts Steil
NOT VOTING-0
Mihalich
Walko
Washington
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
Ryan,
Speaker
A majority of the members elected to the House having voted
in the affirmative, the question was determined in the affimative
and the motion was agreed to.
I
Amend Title, page 1, line 3, by inserting after ''p-
income and for
dB and inserting
Section 1. The definition of "income" in section 4302 of Title 23
I
Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration as
mended ?
Mr. GANNON offered the following amendment No. A5715:
h b ~ o f . . . . th pamds
W y e r t n t h e w n bl nf or mat l onthe
. . -
I
4 4345. Contempt for noncompliance with support order.
(a) General rule.-A person who willfully fails to comply with any
order under this chapter, except an order subject to section 4344 (relating
to contempt for failure of obligor to appear), may, as prescribed by
general rule, be adjudged in contempt. Contempt shall be punishable by
any one or more of the following:
(I) Imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months.
(2) A fme not to exceed [$500] $LMn.
(3) Probation for a period not to exceed [six months] one
.,am,.
similar items; income derived from business; gains derived from dealing:
compensation;~r-&mitLe-mump_ sum-amds,
~ t h Q l L E ~ l x e .
* * *
\ indicates otherwise:
QLiti
. . . --_public
el nw&hfk&e
Section 2. Sections 4304, 4345, 4348(0) and 53 13 of Title 23 are
amended to read:
4304. Cooperation of Commonwealth agencies and.atheraganbtinna.
sLUpon request of the
I , e P a r t % f S , "er f - mest i c relations section,
other provisions of law.] a p e r s a n 3 i n c o m~&e n u mh e r , address,
kci aLSecui t y n u mk and date af hi r t hamLt hamne, .addrcsand
kkphan~numher o f that_pmn' s employer. t oke-ext ent hi s mformation
is k n ~ w n by Ihe Commonwealth a g e n c y _ u k s u c h informatian musr
&main mdi dmt i al i n_auodaxe with E e d e t z l h A l information
Qhmx-hy a d o ms t i ~ l a t i o n s sectioIlunde;r .hisselltion s h d . h e
cQnfide&&nd-shail onl yheui ed h 1he.eniorcemmrnd-atablishmt
af-. suppart orders unde~~thisIitle.
(b) Conperation of labo~otganizatio11~.=C'pon the request of-the
Depattmen~of Public Nelfare_onbehalf o f a a d m t i c relations sec~ion.
labor organizations .sMl..pro\iide irLformatim regarding a person's
ncorne.-telephone numbgr, address. SociaLSecur@ number and dateof
m.
(b) Condition for release.-An order committing a defendant to jail
under this section shall specify the condition the fulfillment of which will
result in the release of the obligor.
4 4348. Attachment ofincome.
* * *
(0) Priority of attachment.-An order of attachment for support shall
have priority over any attachment, execution, garnishment-
- or wage assignment.
~
* * *
3
On the question,
Will t he House agree to the amendment ?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that question, the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Gannon.
Mr. GANNON. Madam Speaker, this amendment is agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman, Mr. Veon,
wish to be recognized ?
Mr. VEON. Yes, Madam Speaker.
Again, I just would like to thank the gentleman, the chairman
of the committee, and his staff who have been helpful in helping
us resolve the differences in the language. I think those points that
the gentleman, Mr. Gannon, was mentioning before are resolved
in this amendment.
I appreciate his time and effort and would ask for an
affirmative vote.
gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Williams.
I appreciate the fact that the two gentlemen are aware of what
the details are. Hopefully, it would be possible for them to explain
to those of us who are not on the committee but are interested,
clearly interested in this issue, to know what the heck we are
supporting.
So I do not care who does it, but I would appreciate someone
explaining to us before we vote on this what we are voting on.
gentleman, Mr. Veon.
k
I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from Philadelphia,
who has been very helpful in trying to move this issue forward,
and I would like to assure the gentleman that myself, Mr. Gannon,
and the staff on both sides of the aisle on this second amendment
have taken the time and effort to solve many of the problems that
the gentleman was talking about in his interrogation of me.
For example, we do have an immunity clause in this second
amendment, and I think that is a helpful addition, and the other
kinds of items that the gentleman, Mr. Gannon, was asking me
about I think are fixed in this amendment.
I think that the members in this House can be very proud
tonight that we have taken the step, as you suggested, the
gentleman from Philadelphia suggested, that we have taken this
step in the right direction for greater, stronger child enforcement
in the State of Pennsylvania.
I think this is a good amendment and it deserves our support.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman,
Mr. Williams, wish to be recognized ?
I would like to speak for the second time in conclusion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
The gentleman offering the amendment deserves our
full-hearted support.
I am appreciative of the fact that so quickly after I made my
commentary - if you are not going to be part of the solution, move
out of the way -he clearly has been a part of the solution and has
moved in an effective way to remediate any problems that you can
think of.
Therefore, I stand also in support of the gentleman's
amendment. Thank you.
Adolph
Allen
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard
Barley
Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Egolf
Evans
Fairchild
Fajt
Fargo
Feese
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
GrUPP0
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Lucyk
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Manderino
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayernik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Merry
Michlovic
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Myers
Nailor
Nick01
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Sather
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor. E. Z.
Taylor, J
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, L. I.
Cohen, M.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Cornell
Corpora
Corrigan
Ccwell
COY
curry
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DeWeese
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Durham
Snyder, D. W.
Farmer
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Itkin
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Kirkland
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Lloyd
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Petrar ca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Plans
Preston
Ramos
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
-Roberts
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
NOT VOTING4
EXCUSED-:!
Mihalich
Thomas
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance .
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Washington
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
Ryan,
Speaker
determined in the affirmative and the amendment was agreed to.
amended ?
I
1
I
Amend Title, page 1, lines I through I, by striking out all of said 1
lines and inserting
Amending Titles 23 (Domestic Relations), 30 (Fish), 34 (Game) and
75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further
providing for relief, for when grandparents may petition, for
support matters, for arrearages, for contempt of the order and for
attachment of income; and providing for denial of certain privileges.
and inserting
Section 1. Section 4345 of Title 23 of the ~e nns ~l va ni a
Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding subsections to read:
1 6 4345. Contempt for noncompliance with support order.
1
---
. . . .
he
k w - -
Section 2. Secrion 53 13 of Title 23 is amended to read:
Amend Bill, page 2, line 20, by striking out all of said line and
inserting
t o f a c e r t i f i e d d a f a p ~ n s v ~ , . .
4345 3 with xlqlpm
fararesldentfishrngllcense 2701 ( r e l a t i ngxde nt
w& th
. . ~upnortnrderunderlving-the
a- Any p e w Aiuec-itkLtaa
Section 4. Section 929 of Title 34 is amended by adding a
subsection to read:
4 929. Revocation or denial of license, permit or registration.
* * *
! & ~ ~ o f s u n n o r t o r d e r - U ! o n i x x i 5 p t of a ce&kdmmd
u45-
l x ! n G ~ M ~ k ~ : ~ deny the
. .
----
inr-
Section 5. Section 1532(b) of Title 75 is amended to read:
1532. Revocation or suspension of operating privilege
* * *
(b) Suspension.-
( 1) The department shall suspend the operating privilege of
any driver for six months upon receiving a certified record of the
driver's conviction of or an adjudication of delinquency based on
any offense under the following provisions:
Section 3367 (relating to racing on highways).
Section 3734 (relating to driving without lights to
avoid identification or arrest).
Section 3736 (relating to reckless driving).
Section - 3743 (relating to accidents involving
damage to attended vehicle or property).
(2) The department shall suspend the operating privilege of
any driver for six months upon receiving a certified record of the
driver's conviction of a subsequent offense under section 1501(a)
(relating to drivers required to be licensed) if the prior offense
occurred within five years of the violation date of the subsequent
offense.
(3) The department shall suspend the operzting privilege of
any driver for 12 months upon receiving a certified record of the
driver's conviction of section 3731 (relating to driving under
influence of alcohol or controlled substance) or 3733 (relating to
fleeing or attempting to elude police officer) or an adjudication of
delinquency based on section 373 1 or 3733. The department shall
suspend the operating privilege of any driver for six months upon
receiving a certified record of a consent decree granted under
42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to juvenile matters) bssed on
section 373 1 or 3733.
(3.1)
Upan receipt af .a certSedxecc;ard _of 3 driver's
conviction under.23 PaC.S.-.& 4343 (relatingh colltempt far
noncomphxe wi h sllppoa order)lthr.department shall suspend
the operating privileges of he-driver until the dri~er has
(4) The department shall suspend the operating privilege of
any driver for three months upon receiving a certified record of the
driver's conviction of section 1371 (relating to operation following
suspension of registration) or an adjudication of delinquency based
on section 1371.
* * *
Section 6. This act shall take effect as follows:
(1) The amendment of 23 Pa.C.S. 8 53 13 shall take effect
in 60 days.
(2) This section shall take effect immediately.
(3) The remainder of this act shall take effect in 90 days.
On the question,
recognizes the gentleman from Beaver, Mr. Veon.
Madam Speaker, this amendment is certainly, clearly much
more controversial than the first amendment, and I want to make
sure that the members here understand the controversial nature of
this amendment.
Madam Speaker, this amendment says that any deadbeat parent
in the State of Pennsylvania who willfully, willfully, violates a
court order for support - and the key word here, of course, is
"willfully7'; this is an individual who is under court order and in
the opinion of the judge has willfully violated that court order for
support -that that deadbeat parent would have his or her driver's
license suspended, revoked, and his or her hunting license
suspended, and his or her fishing license suspended.
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, this is one additional strong
step that this legislature can take to guarantee the children of
Pennsylvania that they get their child support. They have a right to
this child support, and I would hope that we could do everything
possible in this legislature, everything possible in this legislature,
to make sure that these children get the child support that they
have coming to them.
Let me say one more time, Madam Speaker, that it is a sin that
Pennsylvania is ranked 49th in our ability to locate deadbeat
parents. That is not a statistic to be proud of. What that means in
real lives, in real families, Madam Speaker, is that we have
approximately 800,000, 850,000 child support collection cases on
the books in any given month of the year - 850,000 - and the sad
fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that we only have full
collection for approximately 250,000 of those cases. That is a
disaster. That is about family values. That is about real pain and
suffering in real families all across the Commonwealth.
Mr. GEIST. Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what reason does the
gentleman, Mr. Geist, rise ?
Mr. GEIST. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
I hate to interrupt my good friend, Mr. Veon, but I would like
to keep my record with the Teamsters for today 100 percent and at
this time would like to question germaneness of this amendment
since it is drafted to three different titles. Thank you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not in order at
this time to raise that question.
The gentleman, Mr. Veon, may proceed.
2032 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOVSE JUNE 28
opportunity to emphasize what a disaster child support collection
is in the State of Pennsylvania, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that
I have made that case very clearly and very strongly here.
Yes, this is controversial to revoke someone's driver's license
I understand that the gentleman will be making such a motion
shortly, so I would want to make sure that I have had the
for not paying his or her child support, and yes, it is controversial
for taking away the hunting license of an individual who willfully,
willfully, violates his or her support order in the State of
Pennsylvania, and yes, it is controversial and difficult for this
legislature to revoke and take away someone's fishing license who
does not pay his or her child support in the State of Pennsylvania,
but as the members in this chamber already are aware, we
presently revoke professional licenses of individuals who willfully
violate court orders for child support.
Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest one more time that
this is the least we can do today to take one additional small step
to making sure that hundreds of thousands of children in
Pennsylvania get the child support that they rightly deserve.
I would ask for an affirmative vote on this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
COY Kirkland Readshaw Williams
Ezca
Kukovich Rieger Wozniak
LaGrotta Roberts Wright, D. R.
POINT OF ORDER
GERMANENESS QUESTIONED
gentleman from Blair, Mr. Geist.
Mr. GEIST. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would raise that point of order as to the germaneness, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Blair County
has raised the issue of germaneness. Germaneness is decided by
the members of the House.
On the question,
Will the House sustain the germaneness of the amendment?
Baker Dempsey Laughlin Robinson
Battisto Dent Lederer Roebuck
Bebko-Jones Dermody Lescovitz Rooney
Belardi DeWeese Lucyk Sainato
Belfanti Donatucci Manderino Santoni
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Browne
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Clark
Cohen, M.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
Evans
Faj t
Gamble
George
Gigliotti
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Herman
Horsey
Itkin
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Markosek
Masland
Mayemik
McCall
Melio
Michlovic
Mundy
Myers
Olasz
Oliver
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pistella
Preston
Ramos
Shaner
Sheehan
Steelman
Stetler
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Thomas
Travaglio
Trello
'Trich
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Washington
Adolph Fleagle Marsico Serafini .
Allen Flick McGill Smith, B.
Argall
Armstrong
Bard
Barley
Birmelin
Boyes
Brown
Bunt
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clymer
Cohen, L. I.
Conti
Cornell
Daley
DiGirolamo
Druce.
Durham
Ego1 f
Fairchild
Fargo
Feese
Fichter
Gannon
Geist
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
G ~ - U P P ~
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Hershey
Mess
Hutchinson
Jadlowiec
Kenney
King
Krebs
Lawless
Leh
Levdansky
Lloyd
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Merry
Micozzie
Miller
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Perzel
Pettit
Phillips
Pitts
Platts
Raymond
Reber
Reinard
Rohrer
Rubley
Rudy
Sather
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Staback
Stairs
Steil
Stem
Stish
Strittmatter
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Tigue
True
Tulli
Vance
Waugh
Wogan
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
Ry an,
Speaker
I
NOT VOTING-1
McGeehan
Farmer
EXCUSED-2
Mihalich
Less than the majority required by the Constitution having
voted in the affirmative, the question was determined in the 1
I
negative and the amendment was declared not germane.
amended ? 1
Ms. BISHOP offered the following amendment No. ~ 5 3 3 7 :
4
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 53 13), page 2, line 13, by inserting after ''wba''
~ a n e x t e n d e d p a i o d ~
On the question,
. I
recognizes the lady, Ms. Bishop.
Ms. BISHOP. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the members of this House to
please support amendment No. 5337. I am withdrawing the
amendment 5458 and I am offering amendment 5337, which 1
believe, Madanl Speaker. is already in and circulated.
I
Ms. Bishop, adding the language "over an extended period of
time." We would not want grandparents disrupting or invading the
privacy and home life of their children seeking custody of their
grandchildren if in fact it was not absolutely necessary. The words
"over an extended period of time" where a debilitating instance
exists with the natural parents might be appropriate to give them
standing in court.
I think the lady's amendment is a good one, and I ask for
approval of the members.
gentleman from Delaware County, Mr. Gannon.
Mr. GANNON. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, this amendment is agreed to.
1996 LEGISLATIVE
/
This amendment adds language to the bill to ensure that
gandparents requesting custody of the child have assmed the role
of parent over an extended period of time. Current law gives
grandparents the right to petition for partial custody and visitations
when the parents are not deceased, separated, or divorced if their
p d c h i l d has lived with the grandparents for at least 12 months.
This amendment changes the law. It provides that a
gandparent can petition for custody if the grandparent over an
extended period of time has assumed the role of parent - providing
for physical, emotional, and social needs for the child. The
legislation requires that the grandparent prove as well to the court
that it is in the child's best interest to be in the custody of the
grandparent; that it is in the child's best interest not to be in the
custody of either parent, and that the grandparent has genuine care
and concern for the child, and that the grandparent's relationship
with the child began with the parents' consent or a court order.
I ask for an affirmative vote from both sides of the House.
Thank you.
gentleman from Luzerne, Mr. Blaum.
Mr. BLAUM. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I rise in support of the Bishop amendment.
Madam Speaker, the members of the House may remember this
issue some months ago which came before us giving grandparents
status in custody cases. That may be a fine thing, but I think it is
also important that we add the language offered by the lady,
JOURNAL -
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
B~xt on
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
c,
Carone
Cawley Chadwick
Civera
clark
Clymer
Cohen, Cohen, M. I.
Colafella
~ o ~ a i z z o
Conti
corrigan
Cowell
COY
curry
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Deimody
DeWeese
DiGirolamo
t
Adolph
Allen
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard.
Barley
a Banisto
I Bebko- ones
Belardi
BeIfanti
Birme~in
Bishop
Blaum
Durham
Egolf
Evans
Fairchild
Fajt
Fargo
Feese
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Lucyk
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Manderino
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Merry
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith. B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W
Staback
HOUSE
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gmitza
GNPPO
Habay
Haluska
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Itkin
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Kirkland
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Myers
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Platts
Preston
Ramos
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Sainato
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Thomas
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Washington
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zirnmeman
zug
Donatucci Lescovitz Santoni Speaker
D N C ~ Levdansky Sather
NAYS3
Hanna Lloyd Tigue
Rudy
NOT VOTING-]
EXCUSED-;!
Farmer Mihalicb
The majority having voted in the affmative, the question was
determined in the affmative and the amendment was agreed to.
Will the House agree to the bill on tlird consideration as
amended ?
Bill as amended was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This bill has been considered on
three different days and agreed to and is now on final passage.
The question is, shall the bill pass finally ?
Agreeable to the provisions of the Constitution, the yeas and
nays will now be taken.
Stairs
Steelman I (Members proceeded to vote.)
Boscola Gigliotti ~i chl ovi c Steil I
VOTE STRICKEN
Mr. VITALI. Madam Speaker ?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Strike the board.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman f?om Delaware. Mr. Vitali.
Mr. VITALI. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is unfortunate that this bill is being considered at this time at
such a late hour, because this is a very significant piece of
legislation although it may not appear so on its face.
I think and many will agree that the basic building block in our
society is the parent-child relationship. That is sacrosanct, and it
should be very difficult to break up that parent-child relationship,
very difficult. The standard should be very difficult to take a child
away from the home of his natural parents.
What this bill does is weaken the protection a parent has in
maintaining his or her child in his own household. What this bill
does- And I lcnow that this is the product of intensive legislation
by a grandparents' rights organization. They have spoken with me
and maybe they have spoke with many of you, and I sympathize
with their plight, but I also am very wary of weakening that
parent-child bond. What this bill does, as I read it - and I have
come to this chamber with the background of perhaps 10 years of
practicing domestic relations law and I have tried a number of
custody cases - what this does in certain circumstances is put the
grandparent on equal footing in a custody battle with the parent,
and I think that is just wrong. I think that the parent should have
primacy in that sort of legal battle.
The question in a custody battle should not be whether the
parent or another person, be it the grandparent or someone else,
who is better; it should go to the parent; custody should go to the
parent unless there is a very strong reason why it should not.
If you get involved in a domestic matter yourself, if perhaps a
mother-in-law or a father-in-law steps in, you would want that sort
-
1 On the question recurring,
Shall the bill pass finally ?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Agreeable to the provisions of the
Constitution, the yeas and nays will now be taken.
Ado!ph
Me n
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard
Barley
Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, L. I.
Cohen, M.
Colafella
Egolf
Evans
Fairchild
Fajt
Fargo
Feese
Fichtcr
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
G~UPPO
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
ltkin
Jadlowiec
Lucyk
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Manderino
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Merry
Michlovic
Micozzie
Miller
Mundy
Myers
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Sather
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Thomas
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
would want the same thing.
I realize that there is much anecdotal evidence. I know that
even in this chamber there are heart-wrenching stories about this.
of ~rotection: everv one of your constituents who are aarents
In fact, even in my own family, I know that my uncle was a good
person and did in fact take custody of his grandchild and stepped
in for a period of time in difficult circumstances. It was a
heart-wrenching experience to give that child up and in fact I
believe eventually led to his death, and that is a heart-wrenching
story. There are many others out there, but the fact of the matter is,
each child has one and only one parent, and that parent's rights
should be held sacrosanct in this society.
In my experience, I have seen situations where - and it is most
common in a situation where a grandparent has an adult child -
that child falls into bad times - bad marriage, drug misuse, and
other problems - and the grandparent steps in. And what I see, in
many cases, is you have a grandparent who wants to raise the
grandchild as his own and to some degree to compensate for that
mistake that grandparent may have made in raising his own child,
and this is his second chance.
Let me conclude, because the hour is late, but I just want you
to know you are doing a very significant action here. I think that
the parent should not be on equal footing as the grandparent. The
parent's rights should be paramount, and I would ask for a "no"
vote. Thank you.
I Colaizzo James Plans Van Home
Conti Jarolin Preston Veon
Comell Kaiser Ramos Walko
Corpora Keller Raymond Washington
Corrigan Kenney Readshaw Waugh 1
Cu m
1
,
King
Kirkland
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Lloyd
cowell
COY
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DeWeese
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Durham
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
NAY S-3
Josephs Vitali
NOT VOTING-0
willrams
W ogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
Ryan,
Speaker
I Farmer
Mihalich
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE 2035
I
EXCUSED-2
I
the que;tion was determined in the affmative and the
bill passed fmally.
SENATE MESSAGE
VOTE CORRECTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what reason does the
gentleman, Mi. Kaiser, rise ?
Mr. KAISER. Madam Speaker, would it be appropriate to
correct the record now ?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. You may proceed.
Mr. KAISER. Madam Speaker, yesterday, Thursday, June 27,
on HR 415, I was not recorded as voting. I would like to be
recorded as a "yes" vote. Thank you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Your vote will be spread upon the record.
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS
gentleman, Mr. Fargo.
1
Mr. FARGO. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Republican members will caucus immediately upon the
recess. We will be back on the floor at 9: 15.
DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman, Mr. Cohen,
wish to be recognized ?
Mr. COHEN. Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, there will be an immediate meeting of the
House Democratic Caucus to go over the 20-odd bills that the
Senate has just amended and we are going to be faced with a vote
on concurrence tonight.
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
I
Appropriations chairman, Mr. Pitts.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I
I would like to call an immediate meeting of the House
App:opriations Committee in the conference room to the rear of
the hall in the Appropriations area.
HOUSE AMENDMENTS
CONCURRED IN BY SENATE
The clerk of the Senate, being introduced, informed that the
Senate has concurred in the amendments made by the House of
Representatives to SB 1432, P N 2184.
SENATE MESSAGE
HOUSE BILLS
The clerk of the Senate, being introduced, returned H B 2223,
PN 2899; H B 2344, PN 3031; H B 2680, P N 3674; and HB 2768,
PN 3786, with information that the Senate has passed the same
without amendment.
SENATE MESSAGE
AMENDED HOUSE BILLS RETURNED
FOR CONCURRENCE AND
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON RULES
The clerk of the Senate, being introduced, returned HB 544,
PN 3915; H B 950, PN 3779; H B 1415, P N 3853; H B 1711,
PN 3910; H B 1712, PN 3858; and H B 2064, P N 3914, with
information that the Senate has passed the same with amendment
in which the concurrence of the House of Representatives is
requested.
SENATE MESSAGE
HOUSE AMENDMENTS
Representatives to SB 753, P N 2142; SB 1313, P N 2134;
SB 1480, PN 2143; SB 1481, PN 2144; SB 1483, P N 2145; and
SB 1487, PN 2147.
I
~ SENATE MESSAGE
AMENDED SENATE BILL RETURNED
FOR CONCURRENCE AND
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON RULES
Representatives by amending said amendments to SB 1485,
PN 22 10.
Ordered, That the clerk present the same to the House of
Representatives for its concurrence.

EXHIBIT PX-46

2452 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE OCTOBER 1,
RECESS
The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Delaware, Senator Loeper.
Senator WEPER. Mr. President, at this time I ask for a
very brief recess of the Senate for the pwpose of a meeting of
the Committee on Banking and Insurance to be held in the
Rules room at the rear of the Senate Chamber.
The PRESIDENT. For the purpose of a meeting of the
Committee on Banking and Insurance, this Senate stands in
recess.
AFTER RECESS
The PRESIDENT. The time of recess having expired, the
Senate will come to order.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR No. 1
SENATE CONCURS IN HOUSE AMENDMENTS
AS AMENDED
SB 4J4 (Pr. No. 2306) -- The Senate proceeded to consid-
eration of the bill, entitled:
An Act amending TItle 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsyl-
vania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for definitions, for
aITearages for contempt of the court order, for attachment of income
and for pc;tition for custody by grandparents; and adding provisions
relating to same sex marriages.
On the question,
Will the Senate concur in the amendments made by the
House, as amended by the Senate, to Senate Bill No. 434?
Senator WEPER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate do
concur in the amendments made by the House, as amended by
the Senate, to Senate Bill No. 434.
On the question,
Will the Senate agree to the motion?
Philadelphia, Senator Furno.
Senator FUMO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the motion
to concur in Senate Bill No. 434. Mr. President, the major
provision in this bill and the most controversial provision in
this bill is one which outlaws, so to speak, same-sex maniages.
Mr. President, I know that this is a wonderful political issue
for the right and for moderates. It is something that everybody
can go hmne to their constituents and say, is it not wonderful,
we protected you today from all of these honible homosexuals
who are cohabiting. How atrocious it is.
Mr. President, that is the only reason we are moving this
bill through this Chamber with such lightning speed. The
House passed this bill before and it is in the Senate Committee
on Judiciary and it has not moved. In fact, Mr. President, at a
recent meeting when it was placed on the agenda, a quorum
could not even be produced in that committee to move this
bill, so it was withdrawn from consideration. And I think that
was the right thing to do.
We are talking about people here who were created by God,
the same as everyone else, and were created by God with dif-
ferent sexual beliefs and desires than other people have. They
are a discernable minority, the same as if it were the color of
their skin, their ethic background, or their religious beliefs. In
fact, Mr. President, one might argue that this is a religious
belief issue, but yet because it is a little bit foreign to some of
us and to some of our constituents, and also because they are
a distinct minority, it is very easy to pick on them. The same
way, Mr. President, it was easy in Germany for Hitler to pick
on the Jews, it was easy in this country for my immigrant
parents when they came to be picked on and be discriminated
against. It is always easy to pick on minorities, Mr. President.
I might add that this particular group of people are probably
the least offensive to society, and by that I mean, by and large,
statistically they are among Tom Ridge's decent, honest, hard-
worldng Pennsylvanians. They are Democrats and Republicans
and they do no harm to people, but yet they are picked on
constantly and discriminated against constantly. If you look at
the crime statistics, they are an infinitesimal amount of that
statistic, and yet, Mr. President, we care about what goes on in
their bedrooms. Is that not a wonderful role for us to play?
Mr. President, I am of the belief that government has no
place in the bedroom, and I do not know why we have to rush
to judgment on this issue right now. I recognize it is an inflam-
matory issue, it is one that drives some people crazy, but my
plea is that these people are human beings, too, and have the
right to their beliefs and the exercise of their beliefs the same
as the majority of people do. They present no threat to society.
In fact, they complement society and assist society by being
honest, law-abiding individuals.
And, Mr. President, I do not kid myself. I know the vote
today will probably be overwhelming, the same way the vote
in a southern legislature years ago would have been over-
whelming in discriminating against black minorities. That does
not make the vote right. It is still wrong. It is no business of
ours to interfere in the lives of others, in the most private and
intimate way, and it is shameful that we are doing this and it
is shameful that we are doing this in the heat of an election to
try to go home with some Brownie points.
At a point in time when crime is rampant in this State and
we do not address it, at a point in time when senior citizens
are being knocked off the PACE program and we do not ad-
dress it, at a point in time when there are so many people
lacking health care and we do not address it, at a point in time
when there are demonstrators out front living on the sidewalks
of this Capitol to make their plight known and we do not ad-
dress that, we will, with lightning speed, address this abomina-
tion. Mr. President, it is a sad commentary on this General
Assembly that we would do this action and ignore the other
plights of society out there and discriminate against a class of
people who have a right not to be discriminated against.
I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in voting over-
whelmingly "no" in concurring with these horrendous amend-
ments. It is simply wrong to do. Let us join together and deal
with the real problems that face Pennsylvanians - the problems
of senior citizens, the problems of health care, the problems of
1996 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE 2453
crime prevention. That is what we should be dealing with, not
this kind of nonsense.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Philadelphia, Senator Williams.
Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, would the sponsor of
Senate Bill No. 434 consent to interrogation?
The PRESIDENf. Senator WtlliamS, you are asking Senator
Greenleaf to stand for interrogation?
Senator WILLIAMS. Yes, Mr. President. I am asking if he
would.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Greenleaf, would you stand for
interrogation?
Senator GREENLEAF. Yes, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENf. Senator Williams, you may proceed.
Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, could the gentleman
give a clear answer as to whether or not in Pennsylvania it is
legal at the present time for people of the same sex to marry?
The concern is that there has been discussion that the law of
Pennsylvania may in fact be interpreted such that people of the
same sex presently can get manied, and I do think it is incum-
bent on all of us to determine at the outset whether or not
people of the same sex can marry under the State of Pennsyl-
vania law.
Senator GREENLEAF. Mr. President, it is my understand-
ing now that presently there is not a prohibition but the lan-
guage of the statute would prohibit same-sex marriages in
Pennsylvania at the present time. That is my understanding.
Senator Wll.LIAMS. Mr. President, what statute is the gen-
tleman referring to which expressly prohibits same-sex mar-
riage?
Senator GREENLEAF. Mr. President, statutes dealing with
the qualifications for maniage. There is presently language in
there dealing with that subject.
Senator Wll.LIAMS. Mr. President, is the gentleman famil-
iar with the most recent law or legislation which refers to the
parties to a marriage as applicants as compared to any refer-
ence to sex?
Senator GREENLEAF. Mr. President, my understanding of
the present law is it is referred to as a man and a woman, so
inferentially there is a prohibition against a same-sex maniage
now. It is at least my understanding, and that is what my un-
derstanding of the present law is.
Senator WILLIAMS. Does the gentleman feel that law
could be produced in a few minutes or so? Because I do think
that it would be--
Senator GREENLEAF. Mr. President, well, I do not have
the statute in front of me here. Certainly, the gentleman could
get it as well as I can. I would be happy to answer any ques-
tions he might have.
Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, well, I am saying, I
want it for myself, but collectively do we feel as the author of
the legislation to prohibit one part of it. Certainly with all the
lawyers that we have and the money that we spend on lawyers
we should be able to find the Pennsylvania statute which pr0-
hibits same-sex marriages, because I have been told there is
some question about it one way or the other. So I was just
hoping that the gentleman could gather that for us, or if the
Chair could or anybody could get that law so we would know
from where we start. It would be sort of embarrassing to pro-
hibit something from other States which is permitted in Penn-
sylvania, and I just want to make sure that we have that. Do
you think you could assist in that, Mr. President?
The PRESIDENf. No.
Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I understand there is some question about
whether or not folks of the same sex in Pennsylvania can get
manied. If that be so, then we really are in a very embarrass-
ing position to be moving ahead on another aspect of it, and I
am calling for some deliberate step on this issue. It seems sort
of counterproductive, if there is any question about that.
My second point, I would like to comment on the bill as it
is put, Mr. President, if I might, if I might proceed to com-
ment.
The PRESIDENT. You may proceed.
Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, this bill seeks to con-
front the constitutional requirement that we must give full faith
and credit to the acts and the recognition of other States. And
despite the fact that a few days ago the Federal government
was also confronting this issue, I do not believe that we in
Pennsylvania or in any of the States have a legal right to think
that we can override the provisions of the Constitution. And I
think that the effort here is a fruitless symbolism of just that,
for what purpose I do not know. But I think the more that we
confront the Constitution willy-nilly, no pun intended, that we
deprecate and denigrate our respect for what we say is our
guiding instrument, the Constitution.
It is true that the institution of marriage is probably the
most precious arrangement for stability of a people, for solidity
and credibility in the government, and I do not think that we
just ought to go loggers like a bunch of politicians confronting
the constitutional requirement just because it may be some
political point one way or another. The Constitution says that
we must give respect and full faith and credit to contracts and
the other basic things of law coming from other States. To
pass this means that we care nothing about the other States and
that we do not care about that constitutional provision. The
Federal government is doing the same thing. I give you that.
But the Federal government and the folks who go to Congress,
they usually come from legislatures and, of course, they lose
their wisdom more so when they get there. That is no reason
that we should in Pennsylvania commit those same acts.
For that reason, Mr. President, I think we should defeat this
bill as a surface effort to accomplish a nefarious purpose, and
I think that it will infect and dirty up the whole discussion on
what should be a very respectful, matme discussion throughout
the cities and the States of our nation.
I close my comments, Mr. President, and I just hope that
there is a clear-cut law on the books of Pennsylvania as to
what the status is as to whether you can or cannot get married.
I repeat, it would certainly be very silly and very embarrassing
for we, the legislators of Pennsylvania, to be denying one
aspect of this i s u s s i o ~ .. when, in fact, in Pennsylvania we
might be able to have such a contract recognized.
2454 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE OCTOBER 1,
LEGISLATIVE LEAVES
A constitutional majority of all the Senators having voted
"aye," the question was determined in the afftrmative.
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate inform the House
of Representatives accordingly.
The PRESIDENf. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Allegheny, Senator Bodack.
Senator BODACK. Mr. President, I request temporary Capi-
tol leaves for Senator Musto, Senator O'Pake, Senator
Stapleton, and Senator Porterfield.
The PRESIDENf. Senator Bodack requests temporary Capi-
tol leaves for Senator Musto, Senator O'Pake, Senator
Stapleton, and Senator Porterfield, and those leaves are grant-
ed.
I daresay that if we begin to redefine marriage as same
gender, there will be many people who will suddenly realize
that they can achieve the benefits of a manied couple, whether
it is in taxes, inheritances, property ownership, whatever it may
be, that will be a clear economic advantage that is in fact en-
joyed by married people of different genders. It has nothing to
do with gender preference or sexual preference; it has every-
thing to do with economic gain or loss.
I think there will be economic dislocations that would occur
if we were to permit same-gender marriages that we have not
even begun to conceive at this point, and until we are able to
ascertain what those dislocations will be and who in fact will
be picking up the costs of those dislocations, we need to move
forward with legislation such as this. I am not so certain that
we need to do it as precipitously as this bill has been done, but
certainly we need to establish a base from which to work and
from which to conduct a study. This bill permits us the oppor-
tunity to do that by settling the issue until such time as such a
study may be completed. I would urge concurrence in the
amendments.
And the question recurring,
The yeas and nays were required by Senator LOEPER and
were as follows, viz:
Williams
Stapleton
Stewart
Stout
Tartaglione
Thompson
Tilghman
Tomlinson
Uliana
Wagner
Wenger
Mowery
Musto
O'Pake
Peterson
Piccola
Porterfield
Punt
Rhoades
Robbins
Salvatore
Shaffer
Schwartz
NAYS-5
YEAS-43
Greenleaf
Hart
Helfrick
Holl
Jubelirer
Kasunic
LaValle
Lemmond
Loeper
Madigan
Mellow
Hughes Furno
Heckler
Afflerbach
Armstrong
Belan
Bell
Bodack
Brightbill
Corman
Costa
Delp
Fisher
Gerlach
Thank you.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from Philadelphia, Senator Schwartz.
Senator SCHWARlZ. Mr. President, I, too, rise to oppose
concurrence on this legislation. Mr. President, let me just say
from the outset that I recognize the difficulty, in fact the dis-
comfort we have in discussing this issue. Many of us are not
comfortable discussing homosexuality. We may not understand
it personally and we may be concerned about it politically.
But, Mr. President, we cannot allow our discomfort to grant us
a license to discriminate. Because what we are really dealing
with here is a question of tolerance, of privacy, and of under-
standing.
What are we saying if we pass this prohibition? We are
saying it is against the law for two people to make a commit-
ment to a relationship. There are, in fact, Mr. President, people
who want to make this commitment - gays and lesbians who
want stable relationships, who want to and do agree to take
care of each other, to be responsible for each other. These are,
Mr. President, values that we often say we support.
Mr. President, this may not be an easy vote for anyone, but
it should not be so difficult. Our country was founded on the
principles of liberty and justice for all. It is our responsibility,
in fact our obligation, as elected officials to assure a society
that prohibits discrimination against any class of people. It is
wrong to express words of tolerance and to condemn bigotry
only when it is easy and safe, only when it is in the abstract.
Well, today we are faced with a choice to condemn discrimina-
tion, to end a minority group's isolation, and to build under-
standing. It should not be so hard. And I ask each of my col-
leagues not to waste this opportunity and instead to stand up
for understanding, to stand up for acceptance, to stand up for
fairness, and to vote against concurrence on this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENf. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Lehigh, Senator Mflerbach.
Senator AFFLERBACH. Mr. President, it occurs to me that
too often when this particular issue is discussed the debate
seems to focus on the concept of gender preference, sexual
preference, homosexuality, lesbianism, transvestite individuals.
The fact of the matter is that the issue tmns not on those issues
but rather on economics, pure and simple. The bill does not
say that same-sex marriages between homosexuals or between
lesbians or between transvestites shall be prohibited. It simply
says same-sex marriages should be prohibited. It says nothing
about gender preference or sexual preference, and the reason
it says that, in my opinion, is because some people have begun
to realize that permitting same-gender or gender-neutral mar-
riages can cause significant economic dislocations. Marriage
has longstanding been considered a civil conttaet. The fact that
it is now defined that way in this bill does not change the way
it has been for the last hundreds of years, and that civil con-
tract confers obligations, responsibilities, and benefits upon two
individuals who fulfill that legal contract.

EXHIBIT PX-47

LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE OCTOBER 7
AFTER RECESS
The time of recess having expired, the House was called to
order.
STATE GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
Bucks, Mr. Clymer.
Mr. CLYMER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call a meeting of the
State Government Committee at the back of the hall immediately;
a meeting of the State Government Committee at the back of the
hall right now.
The SPEAKER. Will the State Government Committee go to
the rear of the hall of the House.
BILLS REMOVED FROM TABLE
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Mr. PERZEL. Mr. Speaker, I move that SB 13 17 and HB 2905
be removed from the table.
On the .question,
Motion was agreed to.
BILLS RECOMMITTED
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
Mr. PERZEL. Mr. Speaker, I move that SB 13 17 and HB 2905
be recommitted to the Committee on Appropriations.
On the question,
HOUSE BILL
INTRODUCED AND REFERRED
No. 2943 By Representatives WOGAN, BELARDI: KENNEY,
COY, MUNDY, BARD, CARONE, FICHTER, MELIO,
DiGIROLAMO, GEIST, EGOLF, TIGUE, RUDY, MERRY,
DeLUCA, CORRIGAN, SATHER, STURLA, ARMSTRONG,
SAYLOR, BROWNE, RUBLEY, PLATTS, HENNESSEY,
CLARK, B. SMITH, E. Z. TAYLOR, L. I. COHEN, TRELLO and
STEELMAN
An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.343, No. 176). knou n
as The Fiscal Code, providing for the revocation of retail licenses for the
sale of cigarettes.
Referred to Committee on FINANCE, October 7, 1996.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair has been advised that on Saturday,
one Pennsylvania football team returned from Ohio a winner.
The legislative football team, comprising cocaptains
Ron Marsico and Nick Colafella, Jeff Haste, Joe Conti, Levdansky,
Daley, Taylor, Ciruitza, and Senator Delp, beat the Ohio legislative
team by a score of 12-7.
Marsico tossed two touchdowns. Levdansky caught one and
Conti the other. Now, how is that for bipartisan effort?
Mr. Olasz.
I do not know why I did this.
Mr. OLASZ. Mr. Speaker, did I understand that Representative
Colafella was a participant in that game?
The SPEAKER. I understand he was.
Mr. OLASZ. Well, he must have been part of the sleeper play.
Thank you.
ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS OF SPONSORS
The SPEAKER. The Chair acknowledges receipt of additions
and deletions for sponsorships of bills, which the clerk will file.
(Copy of list is on file with the Journal clerk.
SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR B
BILL ON CONCURRENCE
IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
TO HOUSE AMENDMENTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The House proceeded to consideration of concurrence in
Senate amendments to House amendments to SB 434, PN 2306,
entitled:
Consolidated Statutes, further providing for definitions, for arrearages, for
contempt of the court order. for attachment of income and for petition for
custody by grandparents; and adding provisions relating to same sex
marriages.
On the question,
Will the House concur in Senate amendments to House
amendments ?
The SPEAKER. Agreeable to the provisions of the
Adolph
Allen
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard
Barley
Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Evans
Fairchild
Fajt
Fargo
Farmer
Feese
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Manderino
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayernik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Sather
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Senimel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith. S. H.
Snyder. D. W
I Bishop George Merry staback
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen. L. I.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Cornell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
Coy
Curry
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DeWeese
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Durham
Egolf
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
Gruppo
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Jadlowiec
James
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Kirhland
Krebs
Kukor ich
LaGrotta
Laughl~n
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Lerdansky
Lloyd
LucyL
Michlovic
Micozzie
Mihalich
Miller
Mundy
Myers
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Platts
Preston
Ramos
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
NAY S-2
Cohen, M. ltkin
NOT VOTING-I
Jarolin
EXCUSED-]
Wozniak
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Thomas
Tigue
Traraglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Washington
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
Ryan,
Speaker
Adolph
Allen
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard
Barley
Battisto
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Bronne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, 1,. I
Cohen, M
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Comell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
CUT
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
De Weese
DiGirolamo
Evans
Fairchild
Fajt
Fargo
Farmer
Feese
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
Gruppo
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Hennan
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
ltkin
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Kirkland
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Lucyk
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Manderino
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayernik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Michlovic
Micozzie
Mihalich
Miller
Mundy
Myers
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Platts
Preston
Ramos
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Sather
Saylor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Thomas
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Washington
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
amendments to House amendments were concurred in.
Ordered, That the clerk inform the Senate accordingly.
BILLS ON CONCURRENCE
IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Donatucci
Druce
Leh Rubley
Lescovitz ~ u d y Ryan,
~~~h~~ Levdanskv Sainato S~eaker
The House proceeded to consideration of concurrence in I
Egolf
Senate amendments to HB 1985, PN 4000, entitled:
I Carn
An Act amending the act of June 28. 1947 (P.L.1 110, No. 476)
known as t he Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act. further pr o~i di ng for
repossession of a motor vehicle.
On the question,
Will the House concur in Senate amendments?
Lloyd Santoni
NAY S-0
NOT VOTING-]
Wozniak

EXHIBIT PX-48

duties of t he Department of Community Affairs. t he Department of
Revenue and t he State Treasurer: exempting school districts from
compliance with certain laws that require school districts to spend funds
or that limit the ability of school districts to raise revenue; restricting the
taxing authority of certain political subdivisions; and providing for home
rule school district tax charters.
APPROPRIATIONS.
SB 1219, PN 2198 By Rep. PITTS
An Act authorizing the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to
convey a portion of a Project 7 0 tract of land in Porter Township.
Clinton County, under certain conditions to t he Township of Porter, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth Pennsylvania.
APPROPRIATIONS.
BILL REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE,
CONSIDERED FIRST TIME, AND TABLED
SB 1292, PN 2270 By Rep. CLYMER
An Act amending t he act of June 3, 1937 (P. L. 1333. No. 320).
entitled "Pennsylvania Election Code." increasing t he compensation of
election officers: and providing for t he transmitting of returns.
STATE GOVERNMENT.
REPORT SUBMITTED
Chester, Mr. Flick, who submits a report from the House
Intergovernmental Affairs Committee pursuant to HR 29.
(Copy of report is on file with the Chief Clerk.)
SB 434 RECONSIDERED
The SPEAKER. The Chair is in receipt of the following motion
from the lady, Ms. Josephs. The motion is that the vote by which
SB 434, PN 2306, was passed on the 7th day of October be
reconsidered.
On the question,
Will the House agree to the motion?
YEAS- 1 9 9
Adolph
Allen
Argall
Armstrong
Baker
Bard
Barley
Battisto
Bebku-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Evans
Fairchild
Fajt
Fargo
Farmer
Feese
Fichter
Fleaglc
Flich
Gamble
Gannon
Lucyk
Lynch
Maitland
Major
Manderino
Markosek
Marsico
Masland
Mayernik
McCall
McGeehan
Sather
Say lor
Schroder
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Shaner
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith. S. H.
Bishop
B l aum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Clark
Clymer
Cohen. L. 1.
Cohen, M.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Comell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
Cuny
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
De Weese
DiGirolamo
Donatucci
Druce
Durham
Egolf
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Gordner
Gruitza
Gruppo
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
ltkin
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Kirkland
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Lloyd
Melio
M e w
Michlovic
Micozzie
Mihalich
Miller
Mundy
Myers
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Platts
Preston
Ramos
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Roebuck
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
NAY S-0
NOT VOTING-3
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Thomas
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Washington
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N.
Yewcic
Youngblood
Zimmerman
zug
Ryan,
Speaker
Civera Godshall Raymond
EXCUSED-I
Wozniak
determined in the affirmative and the motion was agreed to.
amendments ?
The SPEAKER. On that question, Ms. Josephs.
Ms. JOSEPHS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I only want to point out to the members that this is a bill of
some controversy, which is why I asked for the reconsideration
motion. It was amended in t h d ~ e n a t e to add language about
grandparent custody. Before it went over there, it had the provision
Rimielin Cieist McCill Snyder. D W. I
2194 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - HOUSE OCTOBER 7
you to reconsider that vvt e
The SPEAKER. The Chair thanks the lady.
of same-sex marriage and another part which had to do with
suvvort.
. .
Those of you who perhaps were not paying attention or it went
by very fast earlier on in the session might want to reconsider your
vote, and I thank the body for giving me the opportunity to allow
amendments ?
NAYS-1 3
Cam James Michlovic Roebuck
E: Li : , M.
Josephs Myers Washington
Kirkland Oliver Youngblood
Itkin
Adolph Durham Lucyk Saylor
Allen Egolf Lynch Schroder
Argall Fairchild Maitland Schuler
Armstrong Faj t Major Scrimenti
Baker Fargo Manderino Semmel
Bard Farmer Markosek Serafini
Barley Feese Marsico Shaner
~a t t i i t o
Bebko-Jones
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Blaum
Boscola
Boyes
Brown
Browne
Bunt
Butkovitz
Buxton
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Carone
Cawley
Chadwick
Civera
Clark
Clymer
Cohen, L. I.
Colafella
Colaizzo
Conti
Cornell
Corpora
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
c uny
Daley
DeLuca
Dempsey
Dent
Dermody
DeWeese
DiGirolarno
Donatucci
Druce
Fichter
Fleagle
Flick
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gordner
Gruitza
Gruppo
Habay
Haluska
Hanna
Harhart
Hasay
Haste
Hennessey
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Horsey
Hutchinson
Jadlowiec
Jarolin
Kaiser
Keller
Kenney
King
Krebs
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Laughlin
Lawless
Lederer
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Lloyd
Masland
Mayemik
McCall
McGeehan
McGill
Melio
Mew'
Micozzie
Mihalich
Miller
Mundy
Nailor
Nickol
Nyce
O'Brien
Olasz
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Pettit
Phillips
Pistella
Pitts
Plans
Preston
Ramos
Raymond
Readshaw
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Roberts
Robinson
Rohrer
Rooney
Rubley
Rudy
Sainato
Santoni
Sather
Sheehan
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder. D. W.
Staback
Stairs
Steelman
Steil
Stem
Stetler
Stish
Strittmatter
Sturla
Surra
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
-.
I hOmaS
Tigue
Travaglio
Trello
Trich
True
Tulli
Vance
Van Home
Veon
Vitali
Walko
Waugh
Williams
Wogan
Wright, D. R.
Wright, M. N
Yewcic
Zimmerman
zug
Ryan,
Speaker
NOT VOTING-0
EXCUSED-]
Wozniak
amendments to House amendments were concurred in.
Ordered, That the clerk inform the Senate accordingly.
BILLS SIGNED BY SPEAKER
Bills numbered and entitled as follows having been prepared
for presentation to the Governor, and the same being correct, the
titles were publicly read as follows:
An Act amending Title 68 (Real and Personal Property) of t he
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, adding provisions relating t o the
operation and suspension of adult oriented establishments; and imposing
penalties.
An Act amending t he act of June 28, 1947 (P.L.1 110, No. 476),
known as t he Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, further providing for
repossession of a motor vehicle.
Whereupon, the Speaker, in the presence of the House, signed
the same.
STATEMENT BY MR. PESCI
Mr. Pesci, under unanimous consent.
Mr. PESCI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Appropriations
Committee has discharged SB 2. 1, in turn, was going to put up a
discharge resolution for the Appropriations Committee to do that,
and it is my understanding with those two amendments it does
change the printer's number. My discharge resolution was geared
to the old printer's number, and in turn, I understand that we now
have until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon to submit amendments.
Is that correct ?
The SPEAKER. Yes.
Mr. PESCI. And in turn, I would ask my members that took a
particular interest in this on both sides of the aisle to get their
amendments in and to work on this tax reform bill. You saw what
my people did by trekking over 200 miles to come to the Capitol
to present the petitions, and in turn, we need it. We need it very
badly, and I would particularly ask both sides again that we have
got to work toward some type of tax reform, and I again would

EXHIBIT PX-49

1202 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE JUNE 26,
- -
On the question,
BILL ON FINAL PASSAGE
The House proceeded to consideration on final passage of
HB 185, PN 3052, entitled:
An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Penn-
sylvania Consolidated-Statutes. further defining the offense of
ethnic intimidation to include sexual orientation; and changing
the designation of the offense.
Shall the bill pass finally?
DECISION OF CHAIR RESCINDED
The SPEAKER pro tempore: Without objection, the Chair
rescinds its statement that HB 1655 was considered for the
third time.
On the question - - - - - ~ - - - - recurring,- - - - ~ -- -- -- - - ~
Will the House agree to the bill on third consideration?
Ms. JOSEPHS offered the following amendments No.
A1888:
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 27 lo), page 2, lines 13 and 14, by inserting
a bracket before ""malicious" in line 13 and after "the" where
it appears the first time in line 14 and inserting immediately there-
after
the-following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to
them in this subsection:
"Malicious intention." The
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 2710). page 2, by inserting between lines
18 and 19 - . .. -- .- -
"Sexual orientation." Consensual homosexuality or
heterosexuality.
On the question,
Will the House agree to the amendments?
recognizes the lady from Philadelphia, Ms. Josephs.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues will remember, early in April
HB 1655 was brought up and tabled for lack of a definition of
"sexual orientation." The bill would add to the Ethnic Intimi-
dation Act protection for people who are attacked on the
basis of their sexual orientation.
I am offering an amendment which, incidentally, is the
same as an amendment offered by my colleague, David
Heckler, which so defines "sexual orientation." The defini-
tion in my amendment is "consensual homosexuality or
heterosexuality ."
I urge a vote in favor of this amendment. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gen-
tleman from Wayne, Mr. Birmelin.
Mr. BIRMELIN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not going to oppose this amendment, although I will
be opposing the bill. I think'this amendment is basically just
putting a Band-Aid on cancer. It is not really going to sub-
stantively change the bill, so I have no reason to oppose it and
would ask for a positive vote.
tleman from York, Mr. Foster.
Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would urge the members of the House to pay attention to
the debate not on the amendment but on the ensuing vote.
I regard the lady's technical amendment as meaningless and
irrelevant to the central issue, the central issue being whether
we are going lo give special status in thisGener~! LAssemb!y t
perversion. However, that is an issue that must be addressed
on final passage of the bill.
Do as you like on the amendment. The amendment is mean-
ingless to the main issue.
tleman, Mr. Birmelin, for the second time.
I am told that the other microphone did not work too well
and many did not hear my comments. I would just simply like
to reiterate what Representative Foster said, that my argu-
ment is not over the amendment per se, because I do not think
the amendment really does anything to improve the bill, and
therefore, I have no opposition to it and will speak later on
the bill itself. Thank you.
YEAS- 192
Acosta
Adolph
Allen
Angstadt
Argall
Barley
Battisto
Belardi
Belfanti
Birmelin
Bishop
Black
I Blaum
Bortner
Bowley
Boyes
Brandt
Broujos
Bunt
1 Burd
Burns
Bush
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Carlson
Carn
Cawley
Cessar
Chadwick
Civera
Clark, B. D.
Clark, D. F.
Clark, J. H.
Clymer
Cohen
Colafella
Dorr
Durham
Evans
Fairchild
Fargo
Farmer
Fee
Fleagle
Flick
Foster
Fox
Freeman
Freind
Gallen
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gruitza
G ~ U P P ~
Hagarty
Haluska
Harper
Hasay
Hayden
Hayes
Heckler
Hcrman
Hershey
Hess
Howlett
ltkin
Jackson
Lashinger
Laughlin
Lee
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Linton
Lloyd
McCall
McHale
McNally
McVerry
Maiale
Maine
Markosek
Marsico
Mayernik
Melio
Merry
Michlovic
Micozzie
Mihalich
Miller
Moehlmann
Morris
Mowery
Mrkonic
Murphy
Nahill
Nailor
Noye
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Ritter
Robbins
Robinson
Roebuck
Rudy
RY an
Rybak
Saurman
Scheetz
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Snyder, G.
Staback
Stairs
Steighner
Strittmatter
Stuban
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, F.
Taylor, J.
Telek
Thomas
Tigue
Trello
Trich
Van Home
Veon
Vroon
Wambach
Wass
Cole Jadlowiec Petrarca Weston
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE
COY
DeWeese
Daley
Davies
Dempsey
Dietterick
Distler
Dombrowski
Donatucci
Cornell James Petrone Williams
Corrigan Jarolin Phillips Wilson
Cowell Johnson Piccola Wogan
Josephs
Kaiser
Kasunic
Kenney
Kondrich
Kosinski
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Langtry
YEAS- 199
Pievsky ~ o z n i a k
Pistella Wright, D. R.
Pitts Wright, J. L.
Pressmann Wright, R. C.
Raymond Yandrisevits
Reber
Reinard O'Donnell,
Rieger Speaker
Billow DeLuca Saloom Stish
lolaizzo Lucyk
NOT VOTING-1
Hughes
EXCUSED-3
Dininni Preston Richardson
The question was determined in the affirmative, and the
amendments were agreed to.
On the question,
Will the House agree t o the bill on third consideration as
amended?
Mr. SAURMAN offered the following amendments No.
A1646:
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 2710), page 1, line 9, by striking out the
bracket before "Ethnic"
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 2710), page 1, line 9, by striking out ".I
BIAS-RELATED OFFENSES. " and inserting
-
[.] and other bias-related offenses.
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 2710), page 1, line 11, by striking out "A
-
BIAS-RELATED OFFENSE" and inserting
an offense under this section
On the question,
Will the House agree t o the amendments?
recognizes Mr. Saurman.
Mr. SAURMAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very simple amendment, but it amends a problem
that I had raised when this bill was before us before. It does
not take away the original intention of the bill, which was
ethnic intimidation, but retains that and simply adds "and
other bias-related offenses," so that we add something
without taking away what has been established.
In another section below, it takes away "a bias-related
offense" and refers t o "an offense under this section." It just
simply adds the new impetus without taking away from the
original, which I think we need to retain.
I would appreciate support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
tleman from Berks, Mr. Leh.
Mr. LEH. Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to speak on final passage.
Thank you.
Acosta
Adolph
Allen
Angstadt
Argall
Barley
Battisto
Belardi
Belfanti
Billow
Birmelin
Bishop
Black
Blaum
Bortner
Bowley
Boyes
Brandt
Broujos
Bunt
Burd
Burns
Bush
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Carlson
Carn
Cawley
Cessar
Chadwick
Civera
Clark, B. D.
Clark, D. F.
Clark, J. H.
Clymer
Cohen
Colafella
Colaizzo
Cole
Cornell
Corrigan
Cowell
COY
DeLuca
De Weese
Daley
Davies
Dempsey
Dietterick
Distler
Dombrowski
Donatucci
Dorr
Durham
Evans
Fairchild
Fargo
Farmer
Fee
Fleagle
Flick
Foster
Fox
Freeman
Freind
Gallen
Gamble
Cannon
Ceist
George
Gigliotti
Gladeck
Godshall
Gruitza
Gruppo
Hagarty
Haluska
Harper
Hasay
Hayden
Hayes
Heckler
Herman
Hershey
Hess
Howlett
Hughes
Itkin
Jackson
Jadlowiec
James
Jarolin
Johnson
Josephs
Kaiser
Kasunic
Kenney
Kondrich
Kosinski
Kukovich
LaGrotta
Langtry
Lashinger
Laughlin
Lee
Leh
Lescovitz
Levdansky
Linton
Lloyd
Lucvk
~ c d a l l
McHale
McNally
McVerry
Maiale
Maine
Markosek
Marsico
Mayernik
Melio
Merry
Michlovic
Micozzie
Mihalich
Miller
Moehlmann
Morris
Mowery
Mrkonic
Murphy
Nahill
Nailor
Noye
O'Brien
Olasz
Oliver
Perzel
Pesci
Petrarca
Petrone
Phillips
Piccola
Pievsky
Pistella
Pitts
Pressmann
Raymond
Reber
Reinard
Rieger
Ritter
Robbins
Robinson
Roebuck
Rudy
Ryan
Rybak
Saloom
Saurman
Scheetz
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, D. W.
Snyder, G.
Staback
Stairs
Steighner
Stish
Strittmatter
Stuban
Tangretti
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, F.
Taylor, J .
Telek
Thomas
Tigue
Trello
Trich
Van Horne
Veon
Vroon
Wambach
Wass
Weston
Williams
Wilson
Wogan
Wozniak
Wright, D. R.
Wright, J. L.
Wright, R. C.
Yandrisevits
O'Donnell,
Speaker
NOT VOTING-0
EXCUSED-3
The question was determined in the affirmative, and the
amendments were agreed to.
Will the House agree t o the bill on third consideration as
amended?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This bill has been considered
on three different days and agreed to and is now on final
passage.
JUNE 26,
The question is, shall the bill pass finally?
as to endanger that property and causes 20 or 30 dollars'
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from wayne, M ~ .
Birmelin.
I do have some comments and would like to share them
with the House and would ask for their attention.
I rise in opposition to HB 1655. hi^ bill would amend
section 2710 of our crimes code to punish those who commit
acts of assault, criminal mischief, harassment, and certain
other criminal actions against individuals because of their
homosexuality or heterosexuality more severely than if these
very same acts were committed for most other reasons. This
section grants a special preferential treatment currently to
persons who are assaulted or harassed because of their race,
their color, their national origin, or their religion. The bill
that we have before us, HB 1655, intends to amend that act
that is currently in force to include sexual orientation to this
select list of specially favored victims.
The section 2709 crime of harassment represents an excel-
lent example of how this bill will work if amended. Under
current law, it is a summary offense t o strike, t o shove, or t o
make physical contact with another person in order to harass
or annoy or alarm that M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , it is a summary
offense t o even threaten t o strike or shove another person
with the intent t o annoy. Similarly, persons can be prosecuted
fGr hali.issmeni if engage in a pattern of conduct
seriously annoys another person or which serves no legitimate
purpose. Persons who commit this offense are prosecuted
before a district justice and they are subject to a possible
penalty of up to 90 days' imprisonment or a fine of up to $300
or both. ~ h ~ ~ , we treat harassment much in the same way that
we treat underage drinking or disorderly conduct; that is, we
treat it as a rather minor offense.
If an individual repeatedly harasses a particular
because she symbolizes his hatred of in general or
because she has rejected his unwanted attentions, he commits
a summary offense. Keep in mind, this bill does not prohibit
harassment based on the sex or gender of the victim, only on
the basis of that victim's sexual orientation.
If a commits an act of harassment because the
victim is obese or is physically unattractive or stutters or has
some other handicap, he only commits a summary offense. ~f
a person commits an act of harassment because he disagrees
with that person,s political views, he commits a summary
offense. If a person commits harassment because he is moti-
vated by jealousy, revenge, lust, or a thousand other reasons,
all which could be hateful, he commits only a summary
offense.
~f this bill becomes law, however, and a commits an
act of harassment because the person was a homosexual, or it
could be because he was a heterosexual, he will not be prose-
cuted for a mere Instead, he will be prose-
cuted for a third-degree misdemeanor with its maximum
year prison term and a fine of up t o $2,500.
Let us take the crime of criminal mischief. If a person inten-
tionally or recklessly tampers with the property of another so
worth of damage, he commits a summary offense and is
subject to imprisonment of up t o 90 days and a fine of up to
$300 or both. It is a summary offense regardless of whether
the perpetrator was motivated by his hatred for women, his
hatred for the physical handicap of the person, or the unpop-
ularity of the victim, his political views, or again, a thousand
other reasons. However, if this bill becomes law and the
offender causes Criminal mischief involving that 20 or 30
dollars' worth of property damage because he did not like the
Person being a he be prosecuted for a
third-degree misdemeanor with its maximum 10-year jail term
and a possible $2,500 fine.
Let us take the crime simp1e If a person inten-
tionally causes or attempts t o cause bodily injury to another,
he commits the crime of simple assault. Ordinarily, simple
assault is a second-degree misdemeanor. Thus, violators are
subject t o a potential 2-year prison term and/or a $5,000 fine.
N0w3 because the perpetrator may be motivated by anger,
revenge, jealousy. or is simply looking for a little bloodsport
kicks* it does not matter if they happen to be women,
physically or ~ol i t i c a l l ~ unpopular. But
however, if this becomes law and the perpetrator inflicts the
Same punishment On the person because he is a Or
a heterosexual, he commits a first-degree misdemeanor; he
xxeives a 5-year prisoii term rather than 2 years and a fine of
UP $lOpOOO rather than the $5*000 he have gotten
otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that homosexuality Or sexual
preference or sexual orientation of any type is entitled to
special, preferential treatment that is denied to most of our
other constituents. Our current law does extend this type of
special protection to victims of crimes that are motivated by
racial, religious, or ethnic bigotry or hatred, and I believe that
this special protection is appropriate and fitting in those cases.
America was largely created as a haven for victims of religious
persecution, and freedom of religious belief forms a corner-
Stone in our Bill of Rights. America fought a long and bloody
Civil War to abolish slavery and t o enshrine racial justice as a
fundamental constitutional principle. Criminals who assault
others out of racial, religious, or ethnic hatred threaten the
very social fabric that binds us together as a society, and they
are at the very heart and soul our American value system.
Our assault statutes also accord special protection t o children,
to the elderly, t o law enforcement, firefighters, and school
personnel* reasons a nature.
However, I reject the notion that homosexuality is entitled
to the same special status and preferential treatment that the
United States Constitution accords to these other groups of
racial, ethnic, and religious diversity. In 1986 the United
States ruled that behav-
ior is not entitled to special constitutional protection as a fun-
damental right. I do not believe we should accord homosexual
conduct the legitimacy or the status that it seeks through the
passage of this legislation.
This is not t o suggest that those who assault or harass
homosexuals or heterosexuals should escape criminal prose-
cution or misconduct for their reprehensible behavior. People
who hurt or harass for this reason should be vigorously prose-
cuted and punished under the same criminal law that applies
t o everyone else, and I believe that homosexual victims are
entitled t o the same protection of law accorded t o most other
Pennsylvania assault and harassment victims; no more, no
less.
And I do not believe that most victims of an assault or a
vicious harassment will think it fair that their tormentor faces
a far lighter penalty than someone else who suffered the exact
ame kind of assault or harassment because of that person's
homosexuality. Both victims have suffered the exact same
physical pain, the exact same physical damage, and the exact
same anxieties and fears for their personal safety, and it seems
only fair that both tormentors receive the same punishment.
Currently, Pennsylvania does not criminalize private
homosexual conduct. This is because of a 1980 Pennsylvania
Supreme Court ruling that struck down our law prohibiting
voluntary deviate sexual intercourse and punishing this
offense as a second-degree misdemeanor. The Pennsylvania
Supreme Court invalidated this law because of its view that
the exemption for marriage partners violated equal protec-
tion.
What I am doing today, Mr. Speaker, in speaking against
HB 1655 is seeking t o preserve the status quo that has existed
in our State for the past 10 years. We do not use our law to
single out homosexuals for special punishment or discrimina-
tion, and on the other hand, we should not use our law to
accord homosexuals any special preference or extra protection
above and beyond that which is accorded Pennsylvanians in
general. Pennsylvania does not even grant homosexuals the
civil rights protection that we give those who have suffered
discrimination on account of race, color, religious creed,
ancestry, handicaps, et cetera. And I do not believe that we
should use HB 1655 or any other bill t o tamper with this
delicate balance which keeps our law neutral on this contro-
versial and divisive issue of homosexual conduct.
In summary then, I would say there are three reasons that
we should vote "no" on HB 1655. First of all, in my view, the
bill is a part of an agenda of the gay community t o validate
and give legal standing t o lifestyles that millions of Pennsyl-
vanians find offensive t o their most fundamental moral
oeliefs and do not wish t o see elevated above traditional
sexual practices. Secondly, I believe it is inappropriate t o
include those of different sexual orientation t o an existing
ethnic intimidation statute. Thirdly, if the homosexual com-
munity is to be consistent with their own claims for equal
treatment in Pennsylvania society, then they should not be
asking for these special protections.
For those reasons I would ask for the defeat of HB 1655.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Berks, Mr. Leh.
Mr. LEH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise t o make some remarks on HB 1655.
My concern primarily is with the term "sexual orienta-
tion." This term grew out of another term that homosexuals
used, and that term was "sexual preference," which implies
choice. That term was used by the homosexuals as an alterna-
tive t o medical terms such as "sexual perversion" and "sexual
deviation," because both of these terms had very bad con-
notations for the community at large. After all. a perversion is
an undesirable and distorted act, something unnatural, and
deviation implies that heterosexuality is the recognized norm,
which it is. Most homosexuals have developed the thought
that the acts they commit are simply something they do
because that is the way they were born and not something they
simply choose t o do. Therefore, these acts could not be called
a sexual preference, so they developed the term "sexual orien-
tation." After all, this was the way they were born, and there-
fore, this is the way they are naturally oriented.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that. This is a choice that
these people make. They are not naturally inclined to this life-
style, if that is what you wish to call it.
Now, I would like to turn t o a comment that William Black-
stone made from his commentaries on the Laws of England.
The commentaries served as a foundation for our own law in
these United States. With regard to homosexuality William
Blackstone states, "...sodomy the infamous crime against
nature, committed with either man or beast, the very mention
of which is a disgrace to human nature."
Mr. Speaker, by reading a right of privacy into the 14th
Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has dismissed
the age-old prerogative of the community t o insist that only
married people - that is, people married t o each other - may
licitly have sexual intercourse. Since the days of the early
Romans and Jews, sexual norms have been defined, and while
there may have been times when the rules were widely and
easily broken, there was never, and I repeat, there was never a
time before when legal authorities stepped forward and said,
we no longer have the right to make such rules.
The problem today, Mr. Speaker, is that the court, in
attempting t o develop a system of pluralistic values - that is, a
value system that the lowest common denominator becomes
our standard - no longer sees marriage as Christians and Jews
have always seen it; that is, as an independent entity. Western
society, with its Judeo-Christian ethic, has always viewed
marriage as one man and one woman becoming one flesh and
a new and independent entity. This is why a wife cannot be
forced t o testify against her husband, because we have laws
prohibiting self-incrimination, and for the purpose of the law,
the wife is considered identical with her husband. But today,
marriage no longer has the same traditional legal status it once
had. Serious social problems-
Ms. JOSEPHS. Mr. Speaker, 1 have a parliamentary point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the lady
from Philadelphia, Ms. Josephs. For what purpose does the
lady rise?
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE JUNE 26,
Ms. JOSEPHS. I wonder whether the Speaker would rule if
thegentleman, Mr. Leh, is speaking on the bill anymore.
Mr. LEH. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. JOSEPHS. I hear him making a general and long state-
ment about his view on sexuality and this society, which I am
sure is interesting but may not have anything to do with this
bill, which has to do with violence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask the gen-
tleman, Mr. Leh, to confine his remarks to the subject matter
contained in the bill.
Mr. LEH. Okay.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today in
HB 1655 requires us, the citizens of this Commonwealth, to
recognize homosexual behavior as an alternative lifestyle-
that it does-and it be given minority status, and even a privi-
1-edrnlnorky L-b st ads as a!!uded t~ by the p:evioi;s speaker.
This is not only offensive to me but it offends all the decent,
legitimate minorities in Pennsylvania. These people whom we
are going to give this privileged minority status to are not
simply the gentlemen who like to walk around holding hands.
They do have an agenda. Their agenda is to turn our society
upside down.
Ms. JOSEPHS. Mr. Speaker?
Mr. LEH. Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on the bill any
clearer than that. This bill will turn our society upside down.
This bill will require us to remove the slogan "America Starts
Here" to "America Ends Here," because sodomy has always
resulted in the collapse of a civilization.
Mr. Speaker, I end my comments.
gentleman from York, Mr. Foster.
Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to strenuously oppose this piece of legislation, and I
assure the sponsors of it I will not be lengthy, because what I
have to say can be said very quickly and simply.
This is nothing but a bill to try to equate perversion with
ethnicity, religious background, or race, and I think that is
insulting to the members of those other groups.
Now, I just would like to ask the sponsors, are you trying to
tell me that being a pervert is the same as being Lithuanian or
Latvian? Are you trying to tell me that being gay is the same
as being biacic, yeiiow, or white? Are you trying to teii me that
being a member of a perverted group is the same as being of
one of our major religions?
We gave special status and protection to these three groups
because they represent cherished values in our American
society. I would just like to ask the sponsors, do you think
that homosexuality is something that we can be proud of and
we can elevate in our society and hold out to our children as a
fine way of life in America? That is what this bill is all about,
plain and simple. It is simply an attempt to elevate perversion
to a status that it is totally-totally-out of place.
I would ask you to send this bill down to the crashing defeat
that it deserves, and if the sponsors of the bill want to intro-
duce gay rights legislation, let them do it openly and forth-
rightly instead of tiptoeing through the tulips with this type of
backdoor legislation.
I ask for a negative vote on the bill.
gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the remarks we have just heard from
Representative Leh and from Representative Foster really go
to the heart of the debate about this bill. The question we face
on this bill is whether crime victims have to be virtuous as we
and our constituents define "virtuous" in order for them to
get protection of the law. I have faced this question of
whether crime victims have to be virtuous before, and I would
like to share my experience with you.
My first committee assignment as a member of the Hous
of Representatives was in 1974 when 1 was appointed to h
committee to investigate the problems of rape victims. At that
tirie the izw iniqjreieb by-jiiries aiid by- the co"ris gener-
ally held that a rape victim might very well be responsible for
the rape. Let me repeat that: The law at that time as inter-
preted by juries and by the courts held that a rape victim
might very well be responsible for the rape.
Although the law in Pennsylvania and almost all other
States did not put it this way, in practical terms, based on who
was acquitted and who was convicted, it was almost legal for
the rape of a single woman who was not a virgin. It was
almost impossible for any prosecuting attorney, no matter
how skilled, no matter how capable, no matter how dedi-
cated, to gain a conviction for the raping of a single woman
who would not claim without contradiction that she was a
virgin. It was almost impossible for a prosecuting attorney, no
matter how skilled or how dedicated, to gain a conviction for
the rapeof a-marrjedwoman-who cou!d not claim without
fear of contradiction that she was a virgin at the time of her
marriage.
The argument against changing that law was that by chang-
ing that law, we would be encouraging sexual promiscuity,
and the arguments were very, very similar to the arguments
, that Representative Foster made so eloquently just a few
minutes ago. Are we to tell our constituents that sexually
promiscuous women deserve preference under the law? Why
should we help sexually promiscuous women? We would be
encouraging sexual promiscuity. Those were the ark umenrs
we faced back in 1974, and as a result of that state of ,be law
that the legislature considered and eventually changed, at:rJ,t
three-quarters of all people prosecuted for rape were found
innocent of rape, and many people who were raped felt, b:
looking at those odds, that there was no point in even prose-
cuting. So the number of prosecutions was very small. Only a
small percentage of actual rape victims chose to prosecute,
and only a small percentage of those who chose to prosecute
gained any convictions.
I am proud that Pennsylvania was one of the first States to
change the law. We decided that even if people did not meet
our definition of "virtue" and even if they did not meet our
constituents' definition of "virtue," they were entitled to prr
tection under the law. We decided that rape was a seriou,
crime and that we wanted people to be convicted of it if they
in fact committed the crime. As a result of our change in the
rape law, there are much more prosecutions of rape than there
were 16 years ago, and now, whereas there was a 25-percent
conviction rate in 1974, there is now about a 75-percent con-
viction rate. And no one has said, despite all the charges that
have been made against this legislature, generally irresponsi-
bly, no one has said that the State legislature has encouraged
sexual promiscuity in this Commonwealth because we
strengthened the law making it easier to prosecute rapists. No
one at all has said that, and I really do not believe that once
this law passes, people outside of this floor are going to say
that we have encouraged homosexuality. I really do not think
the district attorney of Pittsburgh, Robert Coville, is seeking
t o encourage homosexuality when he urges us to pass this leg-
islation. I really do not think the district attorney of Philadel-
phia, Ron Castille, is seeking t o encourage homosexuality
when he urges us t o pass this legislation.
The case of rape is not the only time we in the legislature
have acted in what could be perceived as a defense of immoral
conduct. We, for instance, spend a lot of money now in Penn-
sylvania on AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome)
victims, and when we spend money on AIDS victims, we are
spending money on AIDS victims knowing full well that the
two leading groups of AIDS victims are homosexuals and
drug users. When we support AIDS money, we are not
endorsing homosexuality and we are not endorsing drug use;
we are opposing disease.
Long before most of us were born, the State of Pennsyl-
vania has been fighting syphilis, gonorrhea, and other
diseases, and the main cause of the spread of these diseases is
sexual promiscuity. Our predecessors in the legislature who
started this funding long before most of us were born, it was
not their vision that they wanted t o encourage sexual promis-
cuity; it was their vision that they wanted t o stop the spread of
disease, and hatred is a disease. We do not want t o encourage
hatred of any group. And of course it is a much easier thing to
make a case for Latvians than it is for homosexuals. It is
much easier t o defend the rights of Orthodox Jews or Funda-
mentalist Christians not to be attacked by people who hate
their views than it is to defend the rights of homosexuals.
Homosexuals are not the most sympathetic of groups for any
of us to defend. But regardless of whether they are
sympathetic or not, they are human beings created by God
whom we have t o represent, and we are not going t o represent
them by ignoring them, by making speeches appealing t o
fears, appealing t o both hatreds and legitimate moral con-
cerns on the part of our constituents. We are going to have a
society in which people respect the law by making it clear that
violations of the law will be dealt with firmly and strongly.
This is a law enforcement bill. This strengthens the power
of law enforcement. That is the reason why I support it, why
others support it, why Ron Castille, Robert Coville support it.
That is the reason why Attorney General Ernie Preate sup-
ports it. This is a law enforcement bill. It strengthens law
enforcement. It fights crime. It strengthens the belief that this
is a lawful society. We do not have t o say that homosexuals
are good people t o vote for this bill. The issue is not the good-
ness, the decency, the virtue of homosexuals. You do not have
t o endorse homosexuals t o support this bill. All you have to
do is endorse a belief in law.
I believe the people of Pennsylvania believe in law. I believe
the people of Pennsylvania believe in law for all citizens, not
just citizens they approve of. I urge support of this legislation.
Thank you.
from Lehigh, Ms. Ritter.
Ms. RITTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As has been mentioned by the previous speaker, this bill is
supported by Attorney General Ernie Preate, Philadelphia
district attorney Ron Castille, and other DA's across the State
as being an extra deterrent for hate crimes that is needed and
justified.
Pennsylvania had the most gay-related murders in the
Nation last year. Pennsylvania was second in the Nation in the
number of incidents of police abuse against gays and ninth in
the country in the number of physical assaults in general.
Federal law signed by President Bush in April requires the
U.S. Justice Department to compile data on hate crimes,
including those based on race, religion, sexual orientation,
and ethnic background.
It is unconscionable that the Pennsylvania hate crime law
does not include sexual orientation. It seems that even the
Federal Government recognizes that homosexuals are at risk
of victimization for crimes motivated by bigotry and hatred.
We are not providing special treatment for perversion as
has been suggested. Bigots who are unsure of their own sexu-
ality have already singled out homosexuals for special treat-
ment through violence.
This bill does not represent a threat to families or family
values, unless, of course, your family condones violence
based solely on bigotry. My family does not. This bill simply
recognizes that hate-motivated crimes which may be directed
against anyone because of race, religion, ethnic background,
or sexual orientation are of a particular menace t o our society
and must be stopped.
I cannot believe that in this kinder and gentler State we
condone violence based on hatred of a person due entirely to
the sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation of the
victim.
Those of us who are not afraid or intimidated by anyone
whose race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation
is different than our own and who are secure in our own sexu-
ality will vote in favor of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
tleman from Allegheny, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. As has
been mentioned, this is a law and order bill. This is not a
morality iscue. The law and order has been typified by letters
we have received from the District Attorneys Association, the
Attorney General, and the district attorneys of the two largest
cities in Pennsylvania. All of them have indicated that this leg-
-
islation would be helpful in prosecuting antihate crimes,
antigay crimes.
Let us not ignore that basic objective view that our major
law enforcement officials in this Commonwealth have said to
us that they need this legislation to effectively uphold the law.
Why do they need it? They need it because Pennsylvania con-
tinues to rank second in the country in the number of gay-
related murders. For those of you from the western part of the
State, you might remember, just within the last year two
young gentlemen, both educated in private schools, from
upstanding families, decided to go and harass gays in
Schenley Park, and the result ended in the murder of one of
those gays. Why did that happen? It happened because we say
it is okay. Why do we say it is okay? I want you to listen,
listen to the comments that you have heard on the House floor
here.
In the debate on this legislation, the comments I have heard
on the House floor, one of my colleagues said, we do not have
a problem in our town; we do not let any faggots live there.
Another one said, boy, if I found out any faggots were teach-
ing my chiidren, I wouid kiii them. is that what you want?
What you are saying is it is okay. Listen to the comments
around you about this bill. Listen to the snickering. That
snickering says why we need this bill. It says that you are
bigoted. It says that you will not condone a different lifestyle.
It says you will ignore the district attorneys of this State who
say they need this legislation. Think about the comments you
have just made. Think about the laughing you have done
about this legislation. That is bigotry in action. You do not
have to go out to the local bar, you do not have to go to your
local sports events to hear bigotry. You can sit on the House
floor here and listen to it. Keep that in mind when you are
voting for this bill.
Now, as usual, some of my Republican colleagues did not
know what they were talking about when they said this was a
choice lifestyle. The overwhelming evidence from psycholo-
gists and psychiatrists and doctors in this Commonwealth
indicates a gay orientation is not a choice issue; it is an orien-
tation that comes very early in childhood. Unless you were
sexually active at 2 or 3 or 4 years old, you probably did not
have much of a choice.
The sad part about this is that you and I and marly others
here, we have friends and relatives who are gay, and they are
terrified of you. They are terrified of the comments and the
morality you have shown here on the House floor today
because they are afraid you will condemn them.
I want you to think about the people you might know who
are gay and they are afraid to talk to you about it. They are
afraid how you will react, because they have heard you tell
your jokes and have heard you laugh at jokes about faggots.
Think about that. Think about it when you are voting on this
bill, because this bill is not about morality, and if it were
about morality, I would like to think that my God is a cbarita-
ble God, not a God of harsh justice as has been typified here;
a charitable God that recognizes people's weaknesses, because
the chapter of the Bible that I most focus on is the one that
says, he who is without sin can throw the first stone.
Now, I have listened to other comments on this floor, and I
know what the Ten Commandments say, and I will not recite
them, but in the Ten Commandments it does not say you can
be a homosexual but it says you cannot commit adultery; you
cannot lie; you cannot steal; and you cannot do a lot of other
things. I am not going to judge anybody, but I hope you judge
yourselves when you vote on this legislation. Thank you.
tleman from Dauphin, Mr. Wambach.
Mr. WAMBACH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of HB 1655. I do this not
only because it is, unfortunately, a necessary piece of legisla-
tion and addition to the ethnic intimidation act but also
because HB 1655 represents justice too long denied. If we as a
body, as a legislative body, cannot lend the protection of this
bill to those in such dire need as the embattled and scarred gay
and lesbian community, then we not only fail them but all
who rely on our fairness, on our unbiasedness, and on our
judgment, Mr. Speaker.
Samuel Johnson said 200 years ago that, quote, "Preju-
dice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by
argument," unquote, but, Mr. Speaker, it must also always
be punished in law and by those who see prejudice for what it
is: Prejudice is ignorance, at best, and at worst, Mr. Speaker,
hatred.
The facts do not lie. They tell of the atrocities happening
throughout our Commonwealth to homosexuals due only to
their personal sexual preference. These men and women are
being persecuted, beaten, and killed solely because of their
sexuality. If these are not bias-related crimes, Mr. Speaker,
what are they? If they do not warrant the punishments out-
lined in the ethnic intimidation act, what does, Mr. Speaker?
The district attorney of Philadelphia, Ron Castille, in a
letter said-and directly to the heart of the matter-"The
issue here is whether we are willing to tolerate the actions of
those who express their disapproval, not through speechw-
Mr. Speaker, as we can today-"but through violence and
other hate crimes." He continues to say, "...when individuals
in a particular group - whether it be racial, ethnic, religious,
or of a particular sexual orientation - are being singled out for
'special treatment' by violent criminals, solely because of the
victims' identification with that group, then enhanced penal-
ties are called for. Under such circumstances, extra deterrence
is needed and justified," unquote.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the need for HB 1655 is obvious,
and its message is equally clear. By passing this bill, we speak
to those who would make a man or a woman their enemy
merely for their sexual orientation. We say to those who
assault homosexuals out of bias, out of hate, that their crime
is more than an affront to another human, that it is an ugly
blight on all society which must be punished for what it is: a
crime of prejudice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, any crime that is based on not what a person
does-not what a person does-but who they are is intoler-
able. We should not stand for it in this House of Representa-
tives, and I will not. That is why I am supporting HB 1655.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thanks the gentle-
man.
The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from
Bucks, Mr. Heckler.
Mr. HECKLER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like t o address a few of the comments
that have been made by others speaking on this bill.
First of all, Representative Birmelin related several exam-
ples of what would happen in particular cases if the provisions
of this bill were applied. I assume that he misspoke himself in
referring t o the penalty for misdemeanors of the third degree,
which is the next step up from a summary offense. That
penalty is 1 year maximum imprisonment, not 10 years, and I
think that if Mr. Birmelin checks his numbers, he will find
that that is the case.
Mr. Birmelin, however, did raise a very interesting point.
He suggests that if somebody picks on another individual
because that person is fat or they are ugly, the provisions of
the ethnic intimidation statute, whether amended by this bill
or not, do not apply and why are we considering this extra
potential. Well, I would suggest t o you, Mr. Speaker, that if
fat bashing came into vogue in this Commonwealth, first of
all, a number of us-me, unfortunately, included--would
become concerned about that, and I note that I am not alone
on this floor. I would ask those of you who might fall into
that category t o wonder what it would be like to go out in the
evening in Harrisburg here, to go out for a walk, if you had t o
be worried that some group of high s-hool kids was going t o
think it was okay t o bash you because you happened t o be car-
rying a few too many pounds.
Now, Mr. Birmelin mentions ugly, and I am not sure-
There is some debate on that subject. I was the president of
my college football team ugly squad. And again, there may be
a few on this floor who would fall into that category, too.
If we saw a rash, if it became acceptable among at least
some twisted groups within our society to bash people who
were considered ugly, I suggest that we would be taking up
that issue on the floor of this House, not because fatness or
ugliness deserve some special protection but because we have
recognized in our society, or would have under those circum-
stances, that we have a problem, that there are at least some
members of our society who are misguided enough t o think
that it is appropriate to commit criminal offenses against
people in that particular category.
However you end up voting on this bill, you know that
there is a problem right now in Pennsylvania and in our
society with regard to violence against people who are per-
ceived t o be homosexuals. By the same token, in years past we
have recognized that unfortunately our State and our Nation
have been tarnished with incidents of violent behavior, of dis-
criminatory behavior, of vandalism against persons and prop-
erty of people because of their race, their religion, and their
ethnic orientation, their ethnic origins. That is why we passed
the ethnic intimidation bill which we seek today to amend.
Now, Representative Wambach already quoted from what I
think is the most eloquent letter 1 have seen on this matter, the
letter which each of us has received from the district attorney
of Philadelphia, Ron Castille. Let me just quote a few more
lines:
... the issue is not whether we approve of
homosexuality; everyone is entitled to their own
opinion about that controversy. The issue here is
whether we are willing to tolerate the actions of those
who express their disapproval, not through speech,
but through violence and other hate crimes. If racial,
ethnic or any other personal differences, even sexual
orientation, are viewed as justification for the inflict-
ion of criminal violence, our society becomes less civi-
lized and less bound by the values of law and order.
The gentleman, Mr. Foster, suggested t o you that
homosexuality is not a cherished value that we want to pass on
to our children. 1 would suggest that he misses the point.
Neither race nor ethnic origin nor homosexuality is the
cherished va!ue we are here t o protect. The cherished value, I
would suggest, that we wish t o pass on t o our children is that
we live in a society which will not tolerate intimidation and
violence directed at any hated group within our society. That
is one of the very reasons our Commonwealth was founded,
and I would suggest that the legislation before us today is
entirely consistent and is needed t o carry forward that
purpose. That is a value we can hand down t o our children.
I urge the enactment of this bill. Thank you.
tleman from Mercer, Mr. Fargo.
Mr. FARGO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You know, I do not really mind if there is quite a bit of
noise on the floor of the House, because what I have t o say, I
am not sure it is really important t o the rest of the people here,
but it is important t o me and I have t o say it.
I feel in my heart and in my gut that t o pass this bill is
wrong. I believe it is wrong t o do anything legislatively to
promote sexual perversion. I believe that it is wrong t o do
anything legislatively which will legitimize a further deterio-
ration of the traditional family and its values. I believe
passage of HB 1655 will do both of those things, and I would
like t o have you vote against it.
tleman from Allegheny, Mr. Gamble.
Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise t o oppose HB 1655.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution provides that
equal protection clause which states that no State shall deny to
any person the equal protection of the laws. Is this not
unequal protection? I believe it is, and I would hope that you
would vote "no."
tleman from York, Mr. Foster, for the second time.
Mr. FOSTER. Thank yon, Mr. Speaker.
I rise once again t o oppose this piece of legislation.
Apparently the sponsors of the legislation choose to ignore
the fact that there is indeed punishment and penalties for the
offenses that are defined in this act. Apparently, though, like
the line from "Animal Farm," they feel that everyone is equal
but some are more equal than others, and that is where I part
company with them.
1 certainly am not motivated by hatred or anger in opposing
this legislation. I am saddened that it is even before us.
I am puzzled, for example, that the gentleman, Mr. Cohen,
would liken this to attacks on women. Does not the gentleman
realize that an attack on a woman on the street would bring
forth one penalty wherefore the same attack on a homosexual
would bring forth an elevated penalty? I hardly believe that is
what he wants or desires. Certainly 1 do not want it.
I would just like to bring up this example: If you would
have the situation of where an antiwar demonstrator would
assault a veteran in a wheelchair, under the terms of simple
assault, that assailant would get 2 years. However, if the same
assailant assaulted a homosexual, he would get 5 years. Is that
the kind of message that we want to send to our society? Is
that what you want to go home and explain to your people
that you voted for in this bill?
All I can say is, as the gentleman, Mr. Gamble, so aptly
pointed out, we have an equal protection clause in our Federal
Constitution. Let us do exactly that. Let us mete out penalties
with equality, and let us not elevate perversion to any special
sC&iis in thisCc~nmmwealth.
from Philadelphia, Ms. Josephs.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill and I am here today
asking for your support because we face a growing and
serious problem of violence against people who are perceived
to be gay or lesbian. The problem is real. It is pervasive, and it
is growing.
In a study in 1987, the National Institute of Justice in
Washington pointed out that of all the victims of hate crimes,
the most frequent are those who are perceived to be gay men
or lesbian women - our family members, our constituents, our
voters, and taxpayers in this State who deserve protection
from violence, who deserve to be able to walk the streets
without fear, who deserve to be able to report these crimes to
law enforcement officials without fear of retribution, and
who deserve our help.
There has been much discussion today about what we may
be doing, giving some group or other special preference. We
are not doing that, Mr. Speaker. We are preserving law and
order in this society, and we are discouraging those who
would intimidate any group through violence from intimidat-
ing this group of citizens who seek our help.
It is true that there may be no moral consensus about sexu-
ality, but there is a moral consensus about violence. No reli-
gion has stepped forward here. Nobody from a religious
group has come to me and has said, I am against this law; I
think we ought to condone this type of violence. As a matter
of fact, I would like to read to you the words of Cardinal
John O'Connor, which he spoke in a sermon in September of
1988 on this subject, and this is what he says:
"In recent weeks in New York we have had a series of
violent actions against persons perceived to be homosexuals.
These actions were so brutal that they could have resulted in
murder. As it is, one victim is still hospitalized in serious con-
dition as a result of beatings with a baseball bat and a knife
wound in the lung. I wish I had language strong enough to
condemn this kind of cruelty. Anyone who performs such
actions in the belief that he or she is in some way helping
society is utterly stupid." Those who perpetrate violence
against homosexuals "are doing violence against Christ
Himself. "
I believe those of us who are truly religious and understand
justice will agree with Cardinal O'Connor.
I would also like to point out that passage of legislation to
protect people from violence based on their sexuality or their
perceived sexuality is not new in this country. We are not the
first State to approach this problem, and in the States where
this problem has been approached and where these bills have
been passed, I perceive no decadence of society that is distin-
guishable in any way from the States in which it has not been
passed, except for the fact that there is more violence against
gay and lesbian citizens. There are 22 States only that have
ethnic intimidation or hate-crime bills. Of them, nine include
sexual orientation, and they are large and important States.
TLr e isalso action ao include pe>gsp!e who are perceived t-Q be
of unconventional sexual orientation in five other States,
including our own.
It has also been mentioned that President Bush recently
signed a bill which required Federal agencies to collect data on
hate crimes and that they are also, under this bill, required to
collect data on crimes that are committed because of sexual
orientation hate. Two of the very vocal sponsors of that bill
were Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Henry Hyde. Henry
Hyde particularly was a very strenuous supporter of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, there is no organized support against HB
1655. No member of any minority group has come to me and
said, I am insulted by your designation of sexual orientation.
As a matter of fact, people have come to me and said, thank
you for protecting my family members, members of my con-
gregation, my neighbors, and my friends.
Mr. Speaker, the people who know the most about these sit-
uations - the Attorneys General and the people who run the
Human Relations Commission of Pennsylvania, of Philadel-
phia, of Harrisburg, and of Pittsburgh - are in favor of this
bill. This is a bill that is needed. This is a bill that will not hurt
you to support. This is a bill you should cast a "yes" vote for.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thanks the lady.
The Chair recognizes the lady from Philadelphia, Ms.
Bishop.
Ms. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as one of the cosponsors of HB 1655 to
urge your support and passage of this bill. There is nothing
indicated in this bill anywhere that says if you give it a "yes"
vote, you are promoting homosexuality, but rather you are
being compassionate to a group of people who definitely
stand in need of compassion.
There is a fact that there are hate groups rising all over this
Nation, and yes, even in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
where they are intimidating and committing violent acts
- -
against those who are perceived, Mr. Speaker, t o be
homosexual. They have no guarantee that they are, but if
their bodies are shaped a certain way, if their mannerisms are
a certain way, they are perceived t o be homosexual, and they
are committing violent acts against them.
As legislators of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I
believe that it is our duty, that we are sworn t o protect the
rights and t o legislate laws that will be beneficial and affect all
of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I urge you today t o have compassion and join that list of
people - the Attorneys General, the parents, the loved ones,
and yes, those who stand in need, the homosexuals themselves
- and give it a "yes" vote. Thank you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thanks the lady.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Berks for the
second time, Mr. Leh.
Mr. LEH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want t o make a couple comments.
First, it seems t o me-and it has not been mentioned yet-
when we are talking about hate crimes, the greatest perpetra-
tors of hate against homosexuals come from within their own
community - those who knowingly infect others with the
AIDS disease. To me, I think that is a terrible hate toward
your fellow man.
Secondly-this is my own opinion here-I believe that there
are more women abused weekly than we have homosexuals
accosted yearly, and yet we have no amendment of such type
t o prevent women.
Thirdly, I just want t o respond t o the many bleeding hearts
in here that as soon as they cannot answer a question directly,
they begin t o respond by calling us bigots and who knows
what else. Let me just say, because we are talking about a hate
crime here, hate has two sides. Everybody can hate, and hate
is a terrible thing t o do.
But let me just respond. I would like t o read something very
briefly that was in the Boston Gay Community News, and it
says-and I just want t o let you know that we need protec-
tion, too; straight people, we need protection for our chil-
dren-
Homosexuals to Parents:
"We Shall Sodomize Your Sons"
"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your
feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar
lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your
dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker
rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in
your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your
houses of Congress, wherever men are with men
together. Your sons shall become our minions and do
our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They
will come to crave and adore us.. . .
"All laws banning homosexual activity will be
revoked .... If you dare cry faggot, fairy, queer at us,
we will stab you in your cowardly hearts .... All
churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only
gods are handsome young men.. . .
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with
the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed.. . . We too
are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades
of ultimate revolution."
By Michael Swift of the Boston Gay Community News.
There are two sides t o hate, and I think we should protect
our own families and vote this bill down.
tleman from Wayne, Mr. Birmelin, for the second time.
I would like to comment on a few of the things that were
said by some of our previous speakers, just rather briefly. I
think we have debated this issue long enough.
Mr. Cohen said that this was a law enforcement bill. No,
Mr. Speaker; this is a political agenda bill.
Ms. Ritter said that she had statistics t o prove that we had
all of these crimes, and I read for you from the York Daily
Record of June 7, 1990: "The fifth annual National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force survey detailed 7,03 1 incidents,. . ." two-
thirds of which were simple verbal harassment. Also, "The
survey data came from questionnaires sent t o 650 gay activists
and organizations," and they admitted that their methods
were unscientific. Sort of a case of the fox guarding the
chicken house, if you will. I question many of the other statis-
tics that we see are being promoted as evidence of these great
numbers of crimes that are being committed.
Mr. Murphy said that the God that he believes in would not
' have us t o vote against this bill, and he said that we should not
cast the first stone, but what he also does not do is realize that
God speaks quite clearly on this issue on homosexuality, and
He commanded in the Old Testament that stones should be
thrown, according t o the judgment of His word. And if you
do not like the Old Testament, why do you not read the New
Testament in Romans, chapter 1, and see what God thinks of
them even there, and take the full context of what the Bible
says instead of quoting what you like and what you think sup-
ports your argument. I will be glad t o sit down and do that
with Mr. Murphy if he would like to.
,
Mr. Warnbach says that this is an injustice t o be corrected.
HB 1655, Mr. Speaker, is an injustice. It does not correct any-
thing; it is an injustice.
Mr. Heckler says, well, if we had enough crimes against the
fat people and the ugly people, well, we would make that a
special punishment, too. Mr. Heckler makes the mistake of
substituting quantity for the principles that are involved.
Lastly, Ms. Josephs says that this is not giving special pref-
erence to people of different sexual orientation. Well, if it is
not, let us just get it out of here; let us just vote it down and
forget about it, because that is exactly what it is. It gives them
that elevated position that we give t o race and ethnic and reli-
gious differences.
She says that no religious groups say that they are opposed
t o this bill and she has not gotten any organized opposition. I
wonder whom you have asked. I doubt that it is the people
who have stood firmly against this in the past. You found
people who agreed with you and you asked them, and that is
who did not disagree with you. Let me see your scientific
survey that tells us about all the religious groups that are not
opposed t o this bill. Otherwise, do not even bring the argu-
ment up.
1212 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE JUNE 26,
Also, she is a great quoter of other States and what they do.
Do we simply do in Pennsylvania what other States do, or do
we do what is right? Do we say what groups are for or against
it and we will do whatever the most groups for it say? No.
You have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to do what is right,
and the right thing is to vote "no" on HB 1655. Thank you.
FILMING PERMISSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wishes to advise
the members of the House that it has given permission to John
Sanks of WPVI-TV, channel 6, to videotape and to photo-
graph the hall of the House for the next 10 minutes.
CONSIDERATION OF HB 1655 CONTINUED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes for the
second time the lady from Philadelphia, Ms. Josephs.
I will be brief.
In December of this year, Mr. Speaker, we passed a bill
which protected ourselves, as a special group, from assault. It
protected members of the General Assembly. We did not have
too much debate about that, Mr. Speaker. Nobody said that
the status of elected official was not the same historically as
the status of religion or national origin. I do not want to be
one who goes back to my district and tells the family of
someone who is beaten up because of his or her sexual orien-
tation that I protected myself but I did not bother about pro-
tecting that person's son or daughter or father or mother or
cousin or sister. I think what we owe to ourselves, we owe to
the people who pay our salaries.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us remember that groups who hate
do not discriminate. Groups and individuals who are out
looking to beat up someone because of his or her sexual orien-
tation or perceived sexual orientation are not shy when it
comes to attacking people based on their race, their religion,
their color, their ethnic background. We all deserve protec-
tion, in an orderly society, from violence.
I urge a vote for HB 1655. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Agreeable to the provisions
of the Constitution, the yeas and nays will now be taken.
Acosta
Angstadt
Argall
Battisto
Bishop
Blaum
Bortner
Caltagirone
Cappabianca
Cam
Cohen
Cole
Cornell
Cowell
DeWeese
Gruitza
Hagarty
Hayden
Heckler
Howlett
Hughes
Itkin
James
Jarolin
Josephs
Kaiser
Kasunic
Kenney
Kukovich
Lashinger
Melio
Michlovic
Mihalich
Miller
Moehlmann
Murphy
Nahill
Oliver
Pesci
Petrarca
Pievsky
Pistella
Pressmann
Reber
Reinard
Rybak
Saurman
Snyder, D. W.
Steighner
Stuban
Tangretti
Taylor, F.
Thomas
Tigue
Trich
Van Home
Veon
Wambach
Williams
Wright, D. R.
Daley
Evans
Fox
Freeman
Gigiiotti
Godshall
Adolph
Allen
Barley
Belardi
Belfanti
Billow
Birmelin
Black
Bowley
Boyes
Brandt
Broujos
Bunt
Burd
Burns
Bush
Carlson
Cawley
Cessar
Chadwick
Civera
Clark, D. F.
Clark, J. H.
Clymer
Colafella
Colaizzo
Corrigan
COY
DeLuca
Davies
Laughlin Rieger
Levdansky Ritter
Linton Robinson
McHale Roebuck
Maiale Rudy
Maine
NAYS-118
Dempsey Jadlowiec
Dietterick Johnson
Distler Kondrich
Dombrowski Kosinski
Donatucci LaGrotta
Dorr Langtry
Durham
Fairchild
Fargo
Farmer
Fee
Fleagle
Flick
Foster
Freind
Gallen
Gamble
Gannon
Geist
George
Gladeck
Gruppo
- -
Lee
Leh
Lescovitz
Lloyd
Lucyk
McCall
McNally
McVerry
Markosek
Marsico
Mayernik
Merry
Micozzie
Morris
Mowery
Mrkonic
Wright, R. C.
Yandrisevits
O'DonneU,
Speaker
Piccola
Pitts
Raymond
Robbins
Ryan
Saloom
Scheetz
Schuler
Scrimenti
Semmel
Serafini
Smith, B.
Smith, S. H.
Snyder, G.
Staback
Stairs
Stish
Strittmatter
Taylor, E. Z.
Taylor, J.
Telek
Trello
Haluska Nailor Vroon
Harper Noye Wass
Hasay O'Brien Weston
Hayes Olasz Wilson
Herman Perzel Wogan
Hershey Petrone Wozniak
Hess Phillips Wright, J. L.
Jackson
NOT VOTING-I
Clark, B. D.
EXCUSED-3
Less than the majority required by the Constitution having
voted in the affirmative, the question was determined in the
negative and the bill fell.
CONSIDERATION OF HB 2272 CONTINUED
amended?
tleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, at least I have an amendment
to this bill, which is in my office now. I would ask that this bill
be voted on this afternoon.
BILL PASSED OVER TEMPORARILY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill will go over tempo-
rarily for this afternoon.

EXHIBIT PX-50

2006
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL SENATE 1771
AFTER RECESS
LEGISLATIVE LEAVE
Lebanon, Senator Brightbill.
Senator BRIGHTBILL. Madam President, I ask for a tempo-
rary Capitol leave for Senator Lemmond.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Brightbill requests a temporary
Capitol leave for Senator Lemmond. Without objection, the leave
will be granted.
CONSI DERATI ON OF CALENDAR RESUMED
HB 2381 CALLED UP
HB 2381 (Pr. No. 4211) - Without objection, the bill, which
previously went over in its order temporarily, was called up, from
page 5 of the Third Consideration Calendar, by Senator
BRIGHTBILL, as a Special Order of Business.
BILL ON THIRD CONSIDERATION
AND FINAL PASSAGE
HB 2381 (Pr. No. 4211) - The Senate proceeded to consider-
ation ofthe bill, entitled:
A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, providing for marriage between
one man and one woman.
On the question,
Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration?
MOTION TO REVERT TO
PRIOR PRINTER'S NUMBER
from Allegheny, Senator Orie.
Senator ORIE. Madam President, I move to revert House Bill
No. 2381 to Prior Printer's No. 4145.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Orie moves to revert House Bill
No. 2381 to Prior Printer's No. 4145.
On the question,
from Erie, Senator Earll.
Senator EARLL. Madam President, I request a "no" vote on
the motion to revert.
Lackawanna, Senator Mellow.
Senator MELLOW. Madam President, I join with Senator
Earll and ask for a "no" vote on the motion to revert.
Senator ORIE. Madam President, in 1996, when the State
passed the Defense of Marriage Act, there was no threat that any
other type of relationship identical to marriage could be con-
structed. Since then, three States - California, Connecticut, and
Vermont - have filed unions identical to marriage in all respects
except the name "marriage." In Vermont and Connecticut, these
relationships are called civil unions. Massachusetts allows mar-
riage between same-sex couples. The proposed marriage protec-
tion amendment does not intend to stop this. By reverting this
back to the prior printer's number, I believe right now if you
would leave it the way it is, we would not prevent these civil
unions that are identical or nearly equivalent to marriage, and we
would only right now be protecting marriage in the namesake
only and preserving the word "marriage." The point of this legis-
lation and the substance of this legislation was in the prior
Printer's No. 4145 to prohibit civil unions and prohibit the exten-
sion.
Madam President, this is not only about same-sex marriages,
this opens the door for marriage to be defined between, perhaps
a father and daughter, or uncle or aunt. This is to ensure the sanc-
tity of marriage and the tradition of marriage in the history of
Pennsylvania. So I would state. Madam President, a vote against
the reversion to the prior printer's number or against reinstating
the language that prevents identical relationships under another
name is a vote against marriage in Pennsylvania.
Montgomery, Senator Greenleaf.
Senator GREENLEAF. Madam President, I rise in favor of
the motion to revert. Let me first of all say that you will hear
nothing today in regard to condemnation or judgment in regard
to our fellow Pennsylvanians, and in fact, we are dealing with
public policy here and not evaluating or judging them, or anyone
in Pennsylvania. Certainly, this body in 2002 passed the hate
crimes legislation to make sure that individuals who have differ-
ent lifestyles were not subject to violence or criminal activity
against them, and that people who participate in those types of
activities will be punished and punished severely, so we continue
to maintain that stance.
You also will hear no one say that they want to take benefits
away from individuals, their health benefits, life insurance, pro-
tection from abuse actions, estates, wills, power of attorney, and
guardianships. That is not the purpose of this debate. There may
be a disagreement on the consequences ofthe different versions
that are going to be discussed during this debate, but I do not
believe anyone wants to accomplish that. What they want to ac-
complish is a public policy that marriage is one man and one
woman. How do we protect that concept? We all have different
ideas about doing it, and I believe that the original proposal will
most likely accomplish that concept and that ideal and protect it
in the future against litigation and challenges that certainly will
come in the following years to face us, so I rise in favor ofthe
motion to revert.
Philadelphia, Senator Fumo.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, I am a little bit confused
as I hear the two Senators speaking a little bit differently.
Senator Greenleaf speaks about this having nothing to do with
anything but the preservation ofthe definition of marriage be-
1772
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL SENATE JUNE 21,
tween a man and a woman. I believe that is what the bill says in
its current form.
The revision would do what I think Senator Orie wants it to
do, which would bring in the whole issue of everybody else,
whether there is a civil union, whether there are two heterosexual
senior citizens living together for the purpose of preserving then-
Social Security, and everything else. But to accomplish what
Senator Greenleaf wants, you do not have to revert. If you want
to go further and deal with civil unions, and if you want to take
away benefits and want to discriminate against people, which
very rarely constitutions do, constitutions usually prevent dis-
crimination, then I guess you vote to revert. I am confused be-
tween the two Senators who are both espousing, I believe, revert-
ing to the prior printer's number for directly opposite means.
I ask Senator Greenleaf if he would stand for interrogation.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Greenleaf, will you stand for inter-
rogation?
The gentleman indicates he will.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, I would like to ask the
gentleman if the bill in its present form does not do what the
gentleman says he wants to do, and that is to not only codify, but
put in the Constitution the definition that a marriage shall be
between one man and one woman? Does this not do that in its
present form?
Senator GREENLEAF. Madam President, I guess if the gen-
tleman would have asked me that question 5 years ago, I would
have said yes. But unfortunately, with the history of litigation in
this nation, it has shown that it is not enough. We have to set
forth provisions that make sure the original language or the lan-
guage that may be proposed by Senator Gordner later, if the revi-
sion is not passed, is a scenario that will go like this: We pass the
legislation as it is, and then either we authorize civil unions or
some alternative form of relationship, or the courts establish such
a thing through litigation, and then we have a challenge to that
situation saying that we have separate but equal statuses in Penn-
sylvania, either in State or Federal courts, and then the whole
thing is thrown out. That has happened in Connecticut and in
other States in the nation, and we lose the legal battle. So what
the original legislation did was ensure that it was a one man and
one woman amendment, and that any similar arrangement would
not be recognized by government. That does not mean a private
business cannot issue and grant benefits - health, insurance, and
others that I mentioned before. They can also, as in the Devlin
case in Philadelphia, where the Supreme Court said that even
municipal subdivisions could issue same-sex benefits, and I do
not believe this would interfere with that. So what we are trying
to do is, we can pass legislation that only says one man and one
woman, and then lose the battle ultimately later in the courts. So
we were trying to be smart here, and if we really truly mean that,
if we really think a public policy issue is that one man and one
woman is marriage in Pennsylvania, then we should also be smart
and make sure that what we pass will withstand challenges. That
is why I wanted to emphasize, because that is what the debate is
going to be about on this issue, and that is why I stressed, in my
initial comments, that that is not my intention, and I do not think
anyone on this floor wants to take away benefits from people,
even in the original form ofthe legislation.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, I thank the gentleman.
Madam President, I completely disagree with the gentleman
on his interpretation. I do not even agree that we should be hav-
ing this constitutional argument about one man and one woman
being the only kind of marriage, but that is my particular view.
I do believe that his argument that we now have to include every-
thing else as a way to protect ourselves from whatever it is we are
trying to protect, and I guess we will get into that when we get
into the actual amendment, when we vote on whatever we are
going to vote on today. But I believe that you do not have to
revert to accomplish the goal that the gentleman wants to accom-
plish, but you do have to revert if you want to outlaw civil unions
that Senator Orie speaks about, which means that in Philadelphia,
people who have gotten benefits through same-sex relationships
and things of that nature, senior citizens who are living together
as heterosexuals but do not get married because they will lose
some of their Social Security benefits, if we put this language in,
they will not be able to decide anything about each other when
they are in the hospital, or anything else.
I do not think we have to revert, Madam President. I com-
mend the Committee on Judiciary, which Senator Greenleaf
chairs, for their far-reaching, intelligent amendment, and I do not
think we should go against the committee. This is one time I
agree with the committee, that the bill that came out as amended
ought to stay that way.
Thank you, Madam President.
Senator ORIE. Madam President, just in response to Senator
Fumo's remarks, in Devlin vs. the City of Philadelphia in 2004,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, when it was asked to review
the city of Philadelphia's benefit program, asked whether the city
could provide health benefits to domestic partners, and the court
stated there are considerable differences between marriage and
the life partner relationship. Life partnership is simply not the
functional equivalent of marriage. The court went on to postulate
that the benefits may be provided for a myriad of reasons, having
nothing to do with marriage. Life partners' benefits may be pro-
vided to compete with industry to attract the best and brightest
employees. Again, I am emphasizing this does not affect the
benefits. I could even go further and use the court decision in
Utah from the Third District Judge Stephen Ross, who concluded
that adult designees or dependent insurance plans are defined as
a relationship between an employer and an employee and has
nothing to do with marriage.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, this is in response just for
one brief second. That particular Supreme Court decision that the
Senator refers to was decided before this amendment, and my
argument is that if it had this amendment, it could never have
reached that decision. That is what the essence is.
The yeas and nays were required by Senator ORIE and were
as follows, viz:
2006
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL SENATE
1773
YEA-19
Armstrong
Brightbill
Corman
Gordner
Greenleaf
Boscola
Browne
Conti
Costa
Dinniman
Earll
Erickson
Ferlo
Madigan
Orie
Piccola
Pippy
Punt
Fontana
Fumo
Hughes
Jubelirer
Kasunic
Kitchen
LaValle
Lemmond
Rafiferty
Regola
Rhoades
Robbins
Scamati
NAY-31
Logan
Mellow
Musto
OTake
Pileggi
Stack
Stout
Tartaglione
Tomlinson
Wenger
White, Donald
Wonderling
Vance
Washington
Waugh
White, Mary Jo
Williams, Anthony H.
Williams, Constance
Wozniak
Less than a majority ofthe Senators having voted "aye," the
question was determined in the negative.
Senator GORDNER offered the following amendment No.
A8317:
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 29), page 1, by removing the period after
"Commonwealth" and inserting: and neither the Commonwealth nor any
of its political subdivisions shall recognize any other legal union as the
functional equivalent of marriage.
On the question,
Will the Senate agree to the amendment?
Columbia, Senator Gordner.
Senator GORDNER. Madam President, at this time I am of-
fering an amendment which would add some language that was
different than in the bill that came over from the House of Repre-
sentatives. The language I would add says that "neither the Com-
monwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall recognize
any other legal union as the functional equivalent of marriage."
We will return a little bit later to the words "functional equiva-
lent."
I would like to first explain that when the bill was originally
introduced in the Senate, and we are doing the House bill at this
point, but when the bill was originally introduced in the Senate,
I did not immediately sign up as a cosponsor of it, and I do not
even think to this day I am a cosponsor of this particular bill, and
I did not do it because I had some concerns, very frankly, in that
I did not want to support legislation that would harm benefits or
other existing rights of gays and lesbians in this Commonwealth.
So I went about doing some research on that issue, and certainly
leading up to this debate, there has been a lot of information out
there. It is going to affect domestic violence statutes, it is going
to affect rights in Philadelphia and Montgomery County with
colleges and private businesses, and so I did some research on
that, and let me introduce at least some information that I have
gleaned which makes me believe that a lot of those arguments
were more of a smokescreen, and get back to really what the
focus of this vote is all about.
Let me first talk about domestic violence. Many of us received
information saying that there were challenges in Ohio, and that
we would face similar challenges in Pennsylvania. So I did some
research in regard to the Ohio law and how it compares to the
Pennsylvania law. Basically, if you want to get relief in Ohio,
you have to be a spouse, a former spouse, or a child in order to
get relief. The good news is that in Pennsylvania our Protection
From Abuse Law is different. In Pennsylvania, one ofthe provi-
sions is that if you are a former sexual or intimate partner, you
can get relief under our Protection From Abuse Law. Let me just
repeat that. If you are a current or former sexual or intimate part-
ner, you can get relief. That way, if you are boyfriend and girl-
friend or boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and girlfriend,
you can get relief under an our Protection From Abuse law. So
I just want to set that issue aside in saying that this will not affect
our domestic violence law, it will not affect our PFA law as it
currently stands because it is significantly different in that regard
than Ohio.
The other big issue is benefits. Whether it is the city of Phila-
delphia, the county of Montgomery, whether it is colleges and
universities that must decide if they want to give benefits to gay
and lesbian partners in order to attract folks to their campuses,
whether it is private businesses that are in competition with other
companies and other States that also want to be able to provide
those benefits, I had a concern in regard to that. So what I did
was pulled out a decision called Devlin vs. Philadelphia, a deci-
sion that went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a decision that
was decided unanimously by the Pennsylvania State Supreme
Court. The Democratic and Republican members on the Supreme
Court, the conservative and liberal members on the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, decided this decision unanimously, and it was
actually written by Justice Nigro, as a matter of fact, who wrote
the majority opinion. And what the Supreme Court did was look
at the law that Philadelphia passed, and what Philadelphia did
was come up with a life partnership, and they defined life part-
nership. What our Supreme Court did was look at the 1996 law,
the Defense of Marriage Act, and asked, does the municipal ordi-
nance violate that statute? And they decided that it does not. As
a matter of fact, let me give you some of the quotes from that
Devlin decision.
It says there are considerable differences between marriage
and a life partner relationship as described in the Philadelphia
ordinance. Justice Nigro goes on to say that a life partnership is
simply not the functional equivalent of marriage. A life partner-
ship is simply not the functional equivalent of marriage, and they
go on to explain all the things that go along with marriage, the
rights and everything else, then they list the limited things that
life partnership involves, in regard to those health benefits.
So in crafting an amendment that I hope addresses an issue
that some people have on this floor, I lifted the language that the
Pennsylvania State Supreme Court adopted by unanimous deci-
sion, which said that neither the Commonwealth nor any of its
political subdivisions shall recognize any other legal union as a
functional equivalent of marriage, which is the same language
that Justice Nigro used as part of a unanimous decision in Devlin.
So, what does the amendment do? There is no doubt that in
the amendment we are not going to have gay marriages in Penn-
sylvania. It also says we are not going to have gay civil unions in
1774
Pennsylvania. But, any other benefits, any other rights that are
currently available to gays and lesbians in regard to those issues,
in the city of Philadelphia, in Montgomery County, in colleges
and universities, in private business, would not be affected by
this language that the State Supreme Court has already decided.
Let us go back to what the Committee on Judiciary did. There
is no doubt in reading from the press that they interpreted what
the Committee on Judiciary did. A gay wedlock ban would per-
mit civil unions, according to the Morning Call. On gay marriage
bans in Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Inquirer talks about allow-
ing domestic partnerships. An Associated Press writer says that
a Pennsylvania Senate panel passes a gay marriage ban, but no
ban on unions. And certainly in the e-mails and such that I am
getting, there is no doubt that what is left in the bill, as currently
in front of us, says marriage is between a man and a woman, but
definitely allows either the legislature or the courts to impose
civil unions in our State.
Let us go back to the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. When
this General Assembly passed that by an overwhelming margin
and Governor Ridge signed it, the word "civil union" was not out
there. We did not know of civil unions. Actually in that same
year, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law
basically the same language. It was not really until I believe the
year 2000 in Vermont that civil unions really came about. Why
do we need that extra language? Why do we not just put the De-
fense of Marriage Act in the Constitution? Because there are civil
unions out there in a number of States, and for those of us who
are opposed to it, that language needs to go in so that courts may
not step in and allow civil unions.
Let me just finalize by talking about Connecticut. In Connecti-
cut, they had a ban on gay marriages. What ended up happening
was the State adopted legislation that would allow civil unions,
so a ban on gay marriages and an allowance of civil unions. What
has happened just in the last few months? Eight gay couples have
sued in court to overturn the gay marriage ban. Why are they
doing that and how are they doing it? They are using the "sepa-
rate but equal" clause ofthe Constitution. So that is what can
happen here in Pennsylvania. If we solely have a gay marriage
ban, and either the legislature or the courts allow for civil unions,
we could have the same sort of effect where gay couples could
sue under the U.S. Constitution that there is a violation ofthe
"separate but equal" clause.
So, for those Members ofthe General Assembly who are op-
posed to gay marriages and want marriage to be between a man
and a woman, and for those Members ofthe General Assembly
who do not believe we should allow courts to potentially allow
civil unions in our State as they have in other States, but want to
preserve benefits and rights that gays and lesbians currently have
in Philadelphia, in Montgomery, in private contracts, then you
need to support the language that I have crafted, based upon the
unanimous decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
Devlin vs. Philadelphia.
Senator MELLOW. Madam President, I was not really going
to speak on the issue, although I probably disagree with just
about everything the previous speaker just said. Madam Presi-
dent, the language ofthe amendment may be different than the
reversion that we just voted, which is no more than an amend-
ment, but the end result is exactly the same.
Madam President, so that there is no question whatsoever in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania this evening, the first day of
summer ofthe year 2006, at a little past 5 o'clock on Wednesday
afternoon, in Pennsylvania, a marriage can only exist between
one man and one woman. Madam President, there is no civil
union in Pennsylvania that is legal. It cannot be recognized in the
great State of Pennsylvania. There is no challenge to the statute
that was passed in 1996 that made it the law ofthe State that
marriage could only exist between one man and one woman.
What the gentleman is trying to put forth on the floor ofthe
Senate this evening is a hypothetical scenario of what may take
place in some future court somewhere in Pennsylvania, or even-
tually in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Madam President, I do
not believe at this point in time that is an issue that should be
addressed on the floor of this Senate. There are many, many
more important issues than the issue that has been brought up by
the gentleman and the previous speaker, because, Madam Presi-
dent, and I am going to repeat it for the third time, in Pennsylva-
nia, for anyone who might be listening to the program, or for all
e-mails and phone calls we will receive after the vote today, so
there is no mistake, because there are a lot of people being mis-
led on the issue, marriage in Pennsylvania can only be one man
and one woman. The law has been in existence in this State for
the past 10 years. There were only five dissenting votes when it
passed. There is no exception to that in Pennsylvania, there is no
court challenge to it, there is no civil union in Pennsylvania, and
everything else the gentleman said is only hypothetical, and we
can deal with hypothetical in your wildest imagination on any
particular issue as to what may happen. If there was a challenge
or something taking place in the court, or if civil unions were
authorized in Pennsylvania and being addressed in certain coun-
ties, then maybe we should be looking at the issue, but right now
that is not the case. We are wasting a lot of time on an issue that
should not be addressed on the floor of this body today.
So, Madam President, having said that, as an individual who
did not want to speak on this issue, I ask for a negative vote on
the amendment.
Westmoreland, Senator Regola.
Senator REGOLA. Madam President, first of all, I rise today
to thank my colleague, Senator Gordner, for his fine effort on
this, and also to make it clear that I was in support of reverting to
the prior printer's number. I am also in support ofthe Gordner
amendment.
I understand in issues like this, social debates become very
passionate. However, we ultimately have to decide what type of
world or how we would like to see the future of marriage in this
Commonwealth. Today this debate goes beyond the word "mar-
riage." We are talking about the institution of marriage. I person-
ally believe marriage should be between one man and one
woman. I feel that to keep marriage between a man and a woman
is the way that our society should be. If we do not do this, essen-
tially we will be creating a civil union, or something very equiva-
lent. On one hand, we will have marriage, on another hand, we
2006
1775
will have civil union. What is the difference? To me, we are cre-
ating a second-class citizenry.
Then the issue becomes "separate but equal" arguments. Now,
I know I am not an attorney, nor am I going to pretend to be an
attorney on the floor here, but I know under the U.S. Constitu-
tion, under the XIV Amendment, the equal protection amend-
ment, they have already ruled "separate but equal" unconstitu-
tional. I would also like to make it known for the record today,
in no way am I against people losing their benefits, nor would
this legislation or this language prohibit people from losing their
benefits. But one thing I do know, I am pretty good with num-
bers, and when 73 percent ofthe people in Pennsylvania tell me
that they would like to have an opportunity to vote on this issue,
I feel we in this body should give them the opportunity to vote on
this issue, rather than the courts to decide this issue. To allow this
language to remain the way it is currently, without introducing
the Gordner amendment, we are going to allow the courts to de-
cide this issue.
Once again, I do not think 50 Senators or 203 House Mem-
bers should decide this. If you are for it, put the vote up. If you
are against it, put the vote down, but I ultimately feel the voters
should decide this issue. Who are we to decide this issue? Why
not let the voters decide this issue? Why not let the voters decide
what they want in their Constitution? Once again, I strongly urge
my colleagues to vote for this amendment to preserve the sanctity
of marriage between one man and one woman.
Thank you.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, I just have a few simple
comments. I do not want to belabor the debate either. This
amendment does, as Senator Mellow said, exactly what the rever-
sion does. You can get up here all you want and say you are not
against taking away anyone's benefits, but you want to make sure
that they do not get them, and then cite a case that has been de-
cided under the Constitution of Pennsylvania without this amend-
ment. If this amendment goes in, as in the fashion ofthe Gordner
amendment, then you would be taking away benefits. I am not
even going to talk about lesbians and gay men, and all that. I am
talking about senior citizens who live together because they
choose to do so, because if they got married they would lose
Social Security benefits. This would harm them as well.
If you are really worried, and I do not know why you would
be, but if you are really worried about the Supreme Court saying
that marriage is something other than one man and one woman,
therefore overturning the statute that was passed in this General
Assembly, then this constitutional amendment, in its current,
form does that. But if your real agenda is discrimination, if your
real agenda is to set up two categories of people, then you want
what is in the Gordner amendment.
I heard a lot of talk in the House debate, and thank God, I
have not heard much of it in here yet, except for Senator Regola,
about the, quote, "sanctity of marriage." If we are concerned
about the sanctity of marriage, I do not know how it hurts a mar-
riage, anyone's marriage in this Chamber, if some gay couple in
Philadelphia is living together. If your marriage is in that bad of
shape that you cannot withstand that challenge, then I question
your marriage. Who are we kidding here? Mind your own busi-
ness. Stay out ofthe bedroom. You know, the great conservative
Republican philosophy was get government off our back. I never
heard the extra phrase, and into your bedroom. You live your life
in your house, you live your life in your bedroom, and let other
people live their lives in their bedrooms. That is what America
is about.
And as far as the Majority wanting to do something like this,
our Founding Fathers feared the tyranny ofthe majority. Our Bill
of Rights was not designed for the majority, it was designed to
protect minorities from the tyranny ofthe majority, and that is
what Constitutions are about. That is why you have them, be-
cause they defend everybody's rights, whether you agree with
them or not. If it was a legislative decision, we would still have
slavery in the South, maybe even in Pennsylvania. If it were a
legislative decision, and not a court decision, we would still have
segregation in schools. That is not what this countiy is about.
This country, on a conservative level, is about minding your own
business and not worrying about your neighbor's business. This
kind of legislation and this kind of constitutional debate says, oh
no, I want to worry about your business because it is going to
affect my business. When I hear about the sanctity of marriage,
why do we not pass a constitutional amendment that says you
cannot get a divorce in Pennsylvania? Now that would hurt me
twice, and it would hurt some others once or twice, and there are
a lot of people in here, when we talk about the sanctity of mar-
riage, who could not live under that. It would be a lot less expen-
sive, I have to admit.
If you want to talk about statistics, let us talk about the statis-
tics of marriage in America, where I believe at last count one in
every two marriages ends in divorce. That is not because of some
gay couple in Philadelphia. In fact, I submit to you that from
everything I have seen, homosexual relationships last a lot lon-
ger. If we would let them get married, our national statistics
would go up. We would look like a better country.
When you talk about the sanctity of marriage, worry about
your own marriage, and if your marriage is in trouble because a
gay couple in Philadelphia lives together and they love each
other and they have lived together for a long time, and if your
wife or husband is going to leave you because of that, then you
have deeper problems than this amendment is ever going to
solve.
Madam President, I ask my colleagues to vote "no" on this
amendment. If you are really about what you say you are about,
the language is in here. We want to prevent activist courts, the
ones that gave us Brown vs. Board of Education, even the one
that gave us George Bush as President, that was an activist court,
but if we are worried about that, then just leave it the way it is. It
says clearly to our Supreme Court that marriage is between one
man and one woman. That is enough. But if you are really about
discrimination, if you are really about going after people whom
you may not like or whose lifestyle you may not like, or if you
are about putting religion into the Constitution, something our
forefathers feared, then do all this other nonsense.
You know, a long time ago, and I believe Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison have been quoted, but I want to read some-
thing to you from Alexis de Tocqueville, who in the 1830s wrote
a treatise called "Democracy in America," and it has been cited
many, many times, and I quote from that, "...if ever freedom is
1776
lost in America, that will be due to the omnipotence ofthe major-
ity driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to ap-
peal to physical force. We may then see anarchy, but it will have
come as the result of despotism." The big fear was, all in all, and
many times over in the Federalist Papers of our Founding Fa-
thers, the tyranny ofthe majority. The majority, and yes, we are
a country that gives the majority power and gives them certain
authority, but we are also a country unique in the world with the
Bill of Rights that says the majority cannot discriminate or hurt
the minority simply because there are fewer of them. We recog-
nize certain human rights in this country. We do not use a consti-
tution or an amendment process to discriminate against anyone.
We use it to protect everyone's rights.
So, Madam President, I do not even support the bill as it is,
and I will be honest about that, and I will have more to say about
that later, but let us not kid ourselves about this amendment. This
amendment does the same thing as the reversion, and do not cite
to me Supreme Court cases that have already been decided, be-
cause you cannot use them as precedent if, in fact, you pass this
constitutional amendment. The whole ball game changes. So if
you are saying that you are not against taking benefits away from
people, then leave them alone. Do not take a pound of flesh, take
what you are afraid of, a marriage is between one man and one
woman. And if you are really about the sanctity ofthe preserva-
tion of marriage, let one ofthe righteous people on that side of
the aisle, more than me, because I am not qualified on this, but
somebody over there should offer an amendment making it un-
constitutional in this State to dissolve a marriage contract once
it is entered into. That will get you the sanctity of marriage.
Thank you. Madam President.
from Montgomery, Senator Connie Williams.
Senator C. WILLIAMS. Madam President, House Bill No.
2381 was amended already in the Senate Committee on Judiciary
to eliminate the questions related to benefits, domestic violence,
hospital visitation, and the concerns of child advocates. We do
not need to put back language which we do have, nor the lan-
guage that was just offered, to raise these concerns again.
I do have a question. What is a functional equivalent of mar-
riage? I mean, someone said something like that, but it sounds
like a lot of nonsense to me. What is it? It sounds like there is a
dysfunctional equivalent of marriage that goes along with that.
You know, the intent of House Bill No. 2381 was not to protect
the sanctity of marriage, but to limit health benefits to certain
couples, to make it difficult for widowed and divorced seniors
who would have to choose between losing their Social Security
or pension benefits to remarry, or being denied inheritance rights,
or limiting the right to see their partner in a hospital or make
medical decisions for each other.
Marriage is about a loving commitment between two people.
Two people can love each other and respect each other and sup-
port each other without marriage. If we are truly talking about
protecting marriage, we need to look at divorce and adultery, as
my colleague, Senator Fumo, mentioned, and I agree. Should we
amend the Constitution to outlaw that? Should we say adultery
is a felony? According to the National Center for Health Statis-
tics, the U.S. Department of Health and the Centers for Disease
Control, in the United States in 2004, the marriage rate was 7.8
per thousand ofthe total population, and the divorce rate was 3.7
per thousand.
This bill is not only mean-spirited, it denies the humanity of
our fellow citizens and seeks to dilute the power of Pennsylva-
nia's Constitution to protect the rights of all citizens. This bill
will not prevent sexual activities, and this bill could mark Penn-
sylvania as a regressive State that is so busy trying to legislate
morality that we have turned a blind eye to growing economic
problems, to growing our economy, and developing new busi-
nesses.
Madam President, we should be discussing minimum wage
right now. We should be discussing health care insurance, and I
would just like to quote one ofthe most distinguished Catholics
in the United States, a Cathohc who has been held in high esteem
by everyone in this country. Earlier this month outgoing Cardinal
Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C, said that the Catholic
Church "...can live with" civil unions between homosexual cou-
ples "in order to protect their right to take care of each other."
We are a civilization that should take care of each other.
Senator ORIE. Madam President, in response to Senator
Fumo in regard to not mentioning any case law prior to 2004
indicating that their benefits are recognized, maybe I could refer
Senator Fumo to the ACLU Web site, www.ACLU.org, where
they say, do not just sue, do something useful to constitutional
amendments. While these civil union amendments do invalidate
civil unions, they almost certainly do not invalidate domestic
partnership, health or pension plans, wills, or property agree-
ments. It goes on further to state that the amendments usually say
they forbid things that are substantially similar to marriage, or
things which are incidents of marriage, but anyone can be named
in a will, anyone can have property agreements. These are not
legal rights that are special to marriage, and typically, marriage
does not legally entitle you to health insurance. On their Web
site, the ACLU indicates that this does not take away benefits,
does not interfere with any of these things that you are throwing
out there.
In addition to that, when you mentioned that in prior laws, for
example, prohibiting bigotry, or something along those lines, the
United States Supreme Court, the last time that it addressed this
issue, this issue has everything to do with one man and one
woman coming together. The United States Supreme Court in
Murphy v. Ramsey put it best when they indicated this in describ-
ing what marriage is: "...certainly, no legislation can be supposed
more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free,
self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one ofthe coor-
dinate states ofthe Union, than that which seeks to establish the
basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing
from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy
estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and
noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent moral-
ity which is the source of all beneficient progress in social and
political improvement." That is what this is about, Madam Presi-
dent.
I would just like to conclude in stating not only does the
ACLU indicate this, but they have been arguing in 20 other
2006
1777
States that this does not affect the benefits that all of them are
conjecturing that it affects. So I would just like to state for the
record that the ACLU has put to bed any issues in regard to any
rights that are interfered with or health plans or wills or property
agreements.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, my only comment is that
I am a member ofthe ACLU. I do not read their Web site, but I
am glad to see that Senator Orie does and thinks we should listen
to them all the time, so I will start looking at their Web site and
I will make sure I know what they say.
Senator GORDNER. Madam President, I do again want to
mention that we are not ahead ofthe curve on this issue. There
are 20 States that have already considered marriage protection
amendments, 14 of those 20 States talked about not only mar-
riage but civil unions as well. So in 20 States, in Alabama, 84
percent approved, that just happened a few months ago; Alaska,
68 percent ofthe voters approved it; Arkansas, 74 percent; Geor-
gia, 77 percent; Hawaii, 69 percent; Kansas, 75 percent; Ken-
tucky, 75 percent; Louisiana, 78 percent; Michigan, 69 percent;
Mississippi, 86 percent; Missouri, 71 percent; Montana, 66 per-
cent; Nebraska, 70 percent; Nevada, 67 percent; North Dakota,
73 percent; Ohio, 62 percent; Oklahoma, 76 percent; Oregon, 58
percent; Texas, 75 percent; and Utah, 66 percent. When these
issues have gone on the ballot, they have been overwhelmingly
approved by the electorate. They understood what these issues
involve and what the language means. Why be afraid to put this
issue on our ballot and let the voters decide in Pennsylvania?
Let me also say that if courts in other States would not have
come up with civil unions, we would undoubtedly not be having
this debate today. If courts would not have imposed civil unions
in other States, we would not be having this debate, but they
have. It happens. And here is something else that is a new twist.
In the State of Washington, they are in the process right now of
not only coming up with gay marriage, but having the provision
that says that anyone who comes from out of State to the State of
Washington, gets married in Washington, and goes back to their
home State, that marriage is legal. That is something that did not
happen in Massachusetts. That is something that did not happen
in California. But now we have a State that is saying not only can
couples come from out of State into their State and get married,
but it is legal when they leave the State. So what happens in a
month or two from now when a Pennsylvania gay couple goes to
Washington, gets married, and comes back and says, I want my
marriage from Washington enforced? We need to address this
issue. Again, this amendment would say no gay marriage, no gay
civil union, period. That is it, and we do have a Supreme Court
decision in Devlin that was unanimous that goes through a long
process. I encourage people to read the decision. It is very de-
claratory in regard to this type of amendment. We have taken
their language, and it would allow what is currently in law to
continue.
Again, it is clear. I mean, if you do not support gay marriage,
if you do not support gay civil unions, you need to support the
amendment. If you have no problem with civil unions and you
want the version ofthe bill that came out ofthe Senate Commit-
tee on Judiciary, again, as the media has reported, Pennsylvania
Senate panel passes gay marriage ban, no ban on unions. So if
that is the version you want, if you have no problem with civil
unions, then you need to support House Bill No. 2381 as it cur-
rently exists. If you have a concern about it and do not want
courts to impose it, then you need to support this amendment.
Senator MELLOW. Madam President, I have one final com-
ment. First of all, the gentleman talked about a same-sex couple
who would get married in the State of Washington and then come
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and say that they want the
State to recognize this marriage. Well, the gentleman is a very
bright lawyer and knows full well that cannot take place unless
we in Pennsylvania would secede from the Union, and if we
would secede from the Union, then perhaps we could recognize
that same-sex marriage, because the law in the State is very, very
clear. Let us not confuse and deceive people who are either
watching the Session tonight or listening to the Session in the
gallery or on the floor. In Pennsylvania, you cannot have a civil
union. It does not matter what happens in the State of Washing-
ton, in the State of California, in the State of Massachusetts, or
in the State of Vermont. This is the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania, in case people are not aware of that, so you cannot have
that particular kind of union right here in the great Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. For someone to go to another State and
have their same-sex marriage recognized, it can only be recog-
nized in that State. When they come back to Pennsylvania, they
must live with the laws of Pennsylvania that say marriage must
take place between one man and one woman only, so let us not
try to deceive people this evening. Let us not be hypothetical
about what may happen in a court in some fixture date. It has not
happened in 10 years, and there is no reason why it should hap-
pen over the next 2 months where a challenge potentially could
be filed to that particular statute that is now 10 years in the run-
ning.
So, Madam President, let us be clear about this. This is the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is not California, it is not
Massachusetts, it is not Vermont, and it is certainly not the State
of Washington.
Also, Madam President, the gentleman talked about the States
that have adopted a marriage protection amendment, and we all
have the same information. It was given out by the Pennsylvania
Catholic Conference, so there is no mystery about the informa-
tion. Everyone was given a copy ofthe same thing, but there are
a number of States that have the marriage protection amendment
that also allows civil unions, so it is not like every State has
passed a marriage protection amendment or has considered one.
The gentleman talked about the States of Alaska, Arkansas, and
Georgia. I can read them the same way he did, but there are still
States within that group that will provide for a civil union. So, let
us get on with business, vote the amendment, and let us start
dealing with more important things, as was stated by our good
lady Senator from the wonderful county of Montgomery when
she talked about the important issues that are confronting the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and this right now, which may
1778
be an issue somewhere down the road, if, in fact, there ever is a
challenge to the statute, is not an issue in Pennsylvania today
unless we as elected officials of the Commonwealth want to
make it an issue, for whatever those reasons may be.
Again, Madam President, I ask for a negative vote on the
amendment.
Will the Senate agree to the amendment?
The yeas and nays were required by Senator GORDNER and
were as follows, viz:
YEA-23
Armstrong
Boscola
Brightbill
Corman
Gordner
Greenleaf
Browne
Conti
Costa
Dinniman
Earll
Erickson
Ferlo
Jubelirer
Madigan
Orie
Piccola
Pippy
Punt
Fontana
Fumo
Hughes
Kasunic
Kitchen
LaValle
Lemmond
Rafferty
Regola
Rhoades
Robbins
Scamati
Tomlinson
NAY-27
Logan
Mellow
Musto
O'Pake
Pileggi
Stack
Stout
Waugh
Wenger
White, Donald
White, Mary Jo
Wonderling
Tartaglione
Vance
Washington
Williams, Anthony R
Williams, Constance
Wozniak
Less than a majority ofthe Senators having voted "aye," the
question was determined in the negative.
Will the Senate agree to bill on third consideration?
MOTION TO TABLE BILL
Senator GORDNER. Madam President, I have obviously seen
the votes on these two issues, a motion to revert and on the
amendment, and we do have other issues to discuss, minimum
wage and others, so at this point I willingly make a motion to
table this bill.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Gordner moves to table House Bill
No. 2381. The motion is not debatable.
On the question,
RECESS
Senator BRIGHTBILL. Madam President, I ask for a brief
recess for the purpose of a Republican caucus in the Rules room.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, since the Republicans are
going to caucus, we will also caucus.
The PRESIDENT. There will be a brief recess for Republican
and Democratic caucuses. Without objection, the Senate will
stand in recess.
AFTER RECESS
Will the Senate agree to the motion to table House Bill No.
2381?
MOTION WITHDRAWN TO TABLE HB 2381
Senator GORDNER. Madam President, at this time I wish to
withdraw my motion to table.
The PRESIDENT. Senator Gordner withdraws his motion to
table.
It was agreed to.
And the amendments made thereto having been printed as
required by the Constitution,
On the question,
Allegheny, Senator Ferlo.
Senator FERLO. Madam President, I would like to speak on
final passage. I know the hour is getting late, but I feel compelled
to come to the podium to express my concerns and reservations
about the final passage of this bill: As they say in the supermar-
ket business, clean-up in aisle 1.
Madam President, House Bill No. 2381, no matter how we cut
it or no matter how we finesse it here today, we are basically
enshrining in our State Constitution a principle of discrimination.
This measure is disheartening, it is divisive, and it is diversion-
ary, to say the least. This bill is not about embellishing our Con-
stitution with further democratic appurtenances and civil rights
privileges, but it would violate the basic tenet and purpose of our
State Constitution, which states that the great and essential prin-
ciples of liberty and free government may be recognized and
unalterably established. Our State Constitution is as historically
significant in its age and durability as our nation's Constitution
and Bill of Rights.
Article I, Declaration of Rights, Section 26, enumerates this
further by establishing that neither the Commonwealth nor any
political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoy-
ment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the
exercise of any civil right.
Section 28 explicitly states that equality of rights under the
law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania because ofthe sex ofthe individual.
2006
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL SENATE 1779
The legislation before us today is not about protecting or en-
hancing a cherished principle, but a bill that reflects pandering
and political posturing on a hot-button, emotionally-charged
issue. I believe its sole purpose and only impetus, whether on the
nation or here in the State Capitol, is to polarize the electorate in
hopes that people forget about truly substantive issues that the
legislature has failed to act on for the benefit of our varied con-
stituencies.
The political timing of this legislation, even down to the week
of Gay Pride celebrations around the State and nation, takes a
page right out ofthe Karl Rove school of defensive politics play-
back. When your polling and confidence numbers are way down
because ofthe war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the lopsided
economy, the dwindling middle class, joblessness, underemploy-
ment, unwarranted and illegal spying, lying to Congress, outra-
geous trade deficits, and a staggering, strangling national debt,
lack of a national health care plan, confusion and resentment on
the pharmaceutical-serving contrived Medicare Part D program,
or a plethora of critical life and death issues affecting the Ameri-
can people and the residents of our Commonwealth, then throw
out the smokescreens, sharpen the finger pointers, and start ap-
pealing to people's fears and misconceptions.
Pennsylvania law already exists and allows only a legal mar-
riage between one man and one woman. The Pennsylvania Bar
Association rightfully points out that this amendment may pre-
clude future judicial scrutiny in the Defense of Marriage Act and
may infringe upon the independence of and the integrity of our
judicial branch. The institution of marriage is not under threat
from gays or lesbians seeking legal legitimacy of their loving
relationship any more than financially struggling seniors who
need and desire to live together without penalty to protect then-
Social Security income, or millions of heterosexual couples who
choose to live together in what some may consider in sin or are
not yet ready to take the plunge and make the commitment.
This legislature needs to get off of its high moral horse and
stop telling people how to live their adult lives. If you want to
help preserve, protect, and enhance marriage in any of its forms,
then let us help struggling couples meet their day-to-day eco-
nomic and household needs, or maybe give people support when
the chips are down, or encourage people to pull together as a
family when dark clouds loom overhead. Our society, a truly
unique and great American experience, has been nourished be-
cause of the extension of rights to women, to racial minorities, to
those who may be physically or mentally challenged, to immi-
grants, and to children who cannot advocate for themselves in all
instances, and to sexual minorities who ask that their conduct be
treated equitably in a democratic society. We are truly great and
envied because of our tolerance and because of our acceptance.
Let this not be undermined today with an aflfirmative vote.
Should House Bill No. 2381 be approved, we will once again
be thrust into a time of discrimination and intolerance, and for
the first time in our history, discrimination of a select minority
could be written into our State's Constitution. That is why I am
strongly against making a constitutional amendment that bans
same-sex marriage. Legislation and legal rulings represent the
ever-changing fluidity of our society and reflect the
ever-changing opinions ofthe period in which they are made.
Fundamental changes to our Constitution should not be done in
an expedient and fusillading manner. To my knowledge, no for-
mal public hearings have taken place, and many weighty issues
that need careful deliberation and thought have not been explored
or debated, albeit to some extent here today.
For instance, what is the urgency of this bill in light of current
law clearly defining marriage, as Senator Mellow rightfully
pointed out repeatedly, between a man and a woman? Do church
and State separation issues need to be explored further through
public discourse? What is the impact of existing rights and pro-
tection afforded to currently unmarried couples who reside in our
Commonwealth? And although I recognize that House Bill No.
2381 was amended in committee, I believe we still have to grap-
ple with questions regarding the effects of this bill on domestic
partnership benefits afforded to thousands of Pennsylvanians
through collective bargaining, benefit plans offered by public
institutions, or the right ofthe private sector to entice the best
and the brightest in their place of employment. What about the
numerous local ordinances? Philadelphia was mentioned, but
Pittsburgh and many other communities across the State provide
civil rights protections based on marital status or domestic part-
nerships. What about other States that extend legal recognition
to same-sex couples, and are those couples to lose their rights
when they reside or move to Pennsylvania? Are we going to
place a "do not enter" sign at the doorway of Pennsylvania?
Many domestic abuse counselors and advocates, notwithstanding
the comments made earlier today, have expressed fear that a
court may narrowly interpret this law to mean that individuals
seeking a protection from abuse order can only be married, not
dating or living together, let alone be gay or lesbian, or consid-
ered a sexual minority. The list of policy questions is seemingly
endless, and it is irresponsible to approve this bill without further
public comment and discourse.
Writing discrimination into our Constitution, as far as I am
concerned, would be unconscionable and immoral. The Pennsyl-
vania Constitution should not be tarnished with this measure, and
as I pointed out earlier, we already have a Defense of Marriage
Act that defines marriage solely between a man and a woman.
The perceived attack on the institution of marriage from an activ-
ist Pennsylvania court has not been proven to exist. No reason-
able legal threat has been mounted in Pennsylvania that would
make me believe that there is a rational cause for adding this
unprecedented amendment. Pennsylvanians deserve better lead-
ership. The legislature is distracting itself from the necessary
work we should be doing, such as crafting a quality budget, pro-
viding health care coverage for as many of our Pennsylvanians
as possible, building a stronger economy, and creating new jobs.
We should be drafting policies that help create stable, healthy
families, and not imposing a narrowminded definition of what
constitutes a family and effectively undermining what is a vi-
brant, healthy and productive part of our community.
This brings me to another point. What are we losing by putt-
ing bigotry on display and enshrining it into our State Constitu-
tion in this manner? The GLBT community, individually and
collectively, participates in the productive and meaningful
day-to-day life of every community and workplace in our Com-
monwealth, recognized or otherwise. You do not have to cele-
brate diversity, you do not have to appreciate diversity, you can
continue to have your own personal right to your own prejudices
1780
and biases, but why deny others the same civil and human rights
that you seek for yourself? Those who some consider to be in the
sexual minority, they pay taxes, they live and work and contrib-
ute to society. They may be teachers and preachers and politi-
cians. They have families and pay bills. They have good times
and bad times, just like anybody else. Set aside your prejudice
for just a minute and imagine that you have been in a loving and
caring relationship for many years and your loved one is on his
or her death bed and the hospital personnel tells you that you are
not family, so you cannot stay in the room at your loved one's
final passing. I do not believe morally that this is what God or-
dained for humanity. Imagine the relatives of your loved one,
who may be ten times removed, and not even friends any longer
to the now deceased, legally inheriting the house and property
that the two of you built and shared during your relationship,
because you are not recognized in legal standing.
We cannot even count the number of children in loving and
nuturing homes across our Commonwealth who will be threat-
ened with hateful reprises should the next bill seek to ensure that
children be adopted or raised by heterosexual married couples
only, and believe me, this is part two ofthe agenda for many.
Placing this amendment on a general election ballot I fear will
subject our State to a vicious campaign that will be divisive to
Pennsylvania citizens, and dowmight hurtful to gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender residents of our State. We are today
choosing between alienating our neighbors and loved ones, and
possibly pushing them out of communities. Defeating this amend-
ment would pave the way toward an integrated, openminded,
caring, and democratic community that offers equal rights and
liberties to all and at the expense and infringement to none.
Society is always evolving, and acceptable convictions, preju-
dices, and standards continue to be modified. One hundred years
ago women did not have the right to vote. Racial minorities faced
societal prejudices and second-class citizenship. You could be
jailed for what now may be considered acceptable forms of free
speech, and only the well-off received public education as the
social norm. Many closed minds have thankfully been reversed
in our now diverse society, and one day it is very possible that
our society here in the Commonwealth will come to accept
same-sex marriage and legitimize civil unions, which is now the
acceptable norm in Italy, Canada, Spain, England, Sweden, and
many other nations in the world. Catholic nations I might add, as
well.
Regardless of what many of you feel about same-sex mar-
riage, it is necessary that we take a step back and realize the
enormity of tampering with the Constitution. It should not be our
first course of action, Madam President, and I believe very
strongly, at the least, it should be the last resort. Amending the
Constitution should not be taken lightly. This process is difficult
for a reason. The strength and well-being of our Commonwealth
is at stake. A law is enough to accomplish a ban on same-sex
marriage. Amendments like these take away the rights of all men
and women, regardless of their sexual preference or personal
proclivities. While the Constitution has been amended in the
past, it has never been altered with the express intent to deny
equal protection to an entire class of citizens, and now is not the
time to start.
Please reject House Bill No. 2381 and Senate Bill No. 1084,
and let us get back to the people's business.
Senator FUMO. Madam President, I believe it was on October
1,1996, that the bill we have all been referring to, the Protection
of Marriage Act, came over here for a vote, and the vote that day
or night, I do not remember which, was 43 to 5, but I am proud
to say I was one of those 5.1 am also proud to say there was at
least one Republican.
Madam President, we all know what this bill is about. This is
a polite way to try to discriminate against people who are differ-
ent than some ofthe people in here, not necessarily all ofthe
people here. Madam President, I mentioned earlier Alexis de
Tocqueville and his observations. Let me read to you now from
James Madison, who was one ofthe principle authors ofthe Fed-
eralist Papers, when he observed in Federalist No. 51, quote, "It
is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society
against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of soci-
ety against the injustice of another part....In a society under the
forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppose
the weaker, anarchy may truly be said to reign...." That was
James Madison. Thomas Jefferson, who I believe was quoted
many times in the House when they wrapped themselves in the
flag and the cross and religion and everything else they could
think of, Thomas Jefferson in writing to James Madison and
commenting about his fears of tyranny of the majority said,
quote, "The tyranny of the legislature is the most formidable
dread at the present, and will be for many years to come."
Madam President, we have heard about activist judges, as I
stated earlier. "Activist judge" is only a term used when people
are disappointed in a court decision. There was no greater activ-
ist judicial act than Bush v. Gore in the year 2000, when Repubh-
can judges on the United States Supreme Court, who had always
guarded steadfastly States' rights, decided that in that particular
case that States' rights were irrelevant. There are many other
cases in which there were so-called activist judges. Brown vs.
Board of Education, which I mentioned, striking down the sepa-
rate but equal rule. Abrams v. the United States in 1919 that said
the government cannot criminalize anti-American speech. Gid-
eon vs. Wainwright, due process guaranteed for indigent defen-
dants. Loving vs. Virginia, where they had State laws, State laws
that prohibited interracial marriage, and there were some other
ones, too, that you may or may not believe in. But thank God for
some of those courageous courts back in those days that stood up
for decency and equal protection under law.
Madam President, I remember hearing about a time when
signs read, no Irish need apply, no Italians need apply, no col-
ored can use this water fountain. They were bad times. Because
of activist judges, and through our own hard work, those days are
now gone, although in some parts they may still exist, but they
are now gone in reality, and, Madam President, we are a better
nation for it. This country was founded by a bunch of immi-
grants, people who had the courage to come and give up every-
thing they had in order to come to this countiy. We were founded
by our Founding Fathers who were afraid of tyranny, but had the
vision and foresight to understand that if you oppress the rights
2006
1781
of this minority, someday you will oppress mine. That is what
this is about. This is the slippery slope. Today you say this, to-
morrow you say something else. Eventually, you will say some-
thing that offends me or someone else. Then we have gone too
far.
Madam President, I cannot for the life of me understand why,
why in the name of God, who is supposed to be all-loving, we
want to discriminate against people because of their sexual orien-
tation. Madam President, it is like saying I want to discriminate
against someone because they were bora with a deformity, or like
saying I want to discriminate against somebody because they
were bom with blue eyes instead of brown. If we are really a
country and a State that is about equal protection for all, that
means all. It does not mean all in the sense that all is defined by
what the majority want it to be. It is all. The least among us de-
serves protection and equal rights. As I said before, if anyone's
marriage anywhere in this Commonwealth is in danger because
there may be a gay couple somewhere in Pennsylvania, and by
the way, I gave a speech in Gettysburg a couple of weeks ago,
and you may be surprised to learn that there are gay people there,
too, but if anyone's marriage is threatened because two people
love each other and they happen to be ofthe same sex, then God
help your marriage. What you are saying is that the institution of
marriage in this Commonwealth is so weak that we need a consti-
tutional amendment to say it can only be between one man and
one woman to protect the sanctity of marriage. Madam President,
what nonsense, what hypocrisy, what blasphemy.
Madam President, I am for the sanctity of marriage, but I
think anyone should be allowed in it. Marriage is about people,
two people loving each other, caring for each other, wanting to
make a commitment to each other, and living together. It does
not make any difference what they look like. It does not make
any difference what the color of their skin is, and it does not
make any difference what their sexual preference is. Marriage is
about love. God is supposed to be about love. It is blasphemy to
use the name of God to perpetuate and foist upon people segrega-
tion and discrimination. I may not be the best Catholic in the
world, but I did get some Catholic roots that taught me about an
almighty God who cared and loved and forgave, not one who
condemned and said to people you are no good because you are
this or that. And if you are Christian and you believe in Christ, if
Christ were alive today, you would be condemning him. He was
a poor Jew speaking blasphemy. You would be in here today, if
this were the Roman senate, condemning him just as they did.
They crucified Christ for his beliefs. They did not crucify him
because he killed somebody, they crucified him because he did
not believe in what they believed in. So do not come here and tell
me it is Christian, it is for sanctity, it is for other reasons. Dis-
crimination is despicable, no matter where it lives, no matter
what form it is in, and no matter how it is expressed, because
when you allow discrimination to be put against any one human
being, you open the door for it to eventually be against you. That
is what I was taught coming from a family that was sec-
ond-generation Italian, and what I saw and lived with in my life-
time.
Hopefully, someday in the future, people will look back on
this as they probably look back on the debates of Alabama and
Mississippi over slavery, and hang their heads in shame. One of
the Senators gave me the statistics of all the wonderful States that
approved this. I am not happy to be compared with Arkansas,
Mississippi, or Alabama. Is that our standard for this State, that
we are for prejudice? If it were up to those States, we would still
have slavery. They are not the statistics that I want to see put into
the record in this Commonwealth as something to emulate. They
are a disgrace. They are an absolute disgrace. Someday we will
look back. Canada allows for gay marriage, and nobody got di-
vorced because of it. In fact, now 60 percent of Canadians accept
it.
If you want to talk about polls, there is polling data. Fox
News, Roger Ailes' company, in their Opinion Dynamic Polls,
June 13 and 14, 2006, asked, do you support gay and lesbian
couples being able to be legally married? Twenty-seven percent
said yes. Have a legal partnership? Twenty-five percent said yes.
That is 52 percent. Thirty-nine percent had no legal marriage
condition. Pew Research Center, July 13 to 17, 2005, do you
strongly favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to
enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them
many ofthe same rights as married people? That was one ofthe
amendments we dealt with, something that looked like a mar-
riage, and 53 percent said yes, 40 percent said no. In an ABC
News-Washington Post Poll, 27 percent were for marriage, 29
percent for civil unions, adding up to 56,40 percent had no opin-
ion, and 4 percent were unsure.
Madam President, even this conservative nation of America
is finally coming around to recognize that we are not hurt by a
gay couple in love who happen to want to live together and exer-
cise their rights as human beings. In this Chamber, I do not
know. I would bet if this were a secret vote, it would never pass,
and I understand political reality in some areas of this Common-
wealth, and that is maybe because our school system has not
done as good a job as it should have in teaching our kids about
individual rights for all. But someday, and I think this will pass
tonight, not with my vote, but it will pass, but someday we will
look back on this and hang our heads in shame, and maybe not
this generation, but the next generation will.
Madam President, I urge those colleagues with courage to
vote "no." I understand the ones who cannot for political expedi-
ency. I am glad and proud that I come from a district where I can
vote my conscience on this issue, and it will be a loud and re-
sounding "no."
The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions of
the Constitution and were as follows, viz:
YEA-38
Armstrong
Boscola
Brightbill
Browne
Conti
Corman
Costa
Earll
Erickson
Fontana
Gordner
Greenleaf
Jubelirer
Kasunic
LaValle
Lemmond
Logan
Madigan
Mellow
Musto
O'Pake
Piccola
Pileggi
Punt
Rafferty
Rhoades
Robbins
Scamati
Stack
Stout
Tomlinson
Vance
Waugh
Wenger
White, Donald
White, Mary Jo
Wonderling
Wozniak
1782
NAY-12
Dinniman
Ferlo
Fumo
Hughes
Kitchen
Orie
Pippy
Regola
Tartaglione
Washington
Williams, Constance
"aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.
Ordered, That the Secretary ofthe Senate return said bill to
the House of Representatives with information that the Senate
has passed the same with amendments in which concurrence of
the House is requested.
SPECI AL ORDER OF BUSINESS
SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR No. 2
AND FINAL PASSAGE
SB 1188 (Pr. No. 1910) - The Senate proceeded to consider-
An Act amending the act of August 26, 1971 (P.L.351, No.91),
known as the State Lottery Law, further providing for definitions, for
physician, certified registered nurse practitioner and pharmacy partici-
pation, for reduced assistance, for program generally, for restricted
formulary, for reimbursement, for income verification, for contracts and
for the pharmaceutical assistance contract for the elderly needs enhance-
ment tier, for pharmacy best practices and cost controls review; further
providing for penalties; establishing the coordination of Federal and
State benefits; providing for continued eligibility under certain circum-
stances; and making editorial changes.
Considered the third time and agreed to,
And the amendments made thereto having been printed as
required by the Constitution,
On the question,
from Cumberland, Senator Vance.
Senator VANCE. Madam President, for 20 years low-income
Pennsylvanians have benefitted from our PACE and PAGENET
program, and we really do rank as one ofthe leaders in the entire
country in prescription drugs for low-income seniors. The bill
that we are about to pass in the Senate today will make that even
better. We are going to wrap around our PACE and PAGENET
bill with Medicare Part D. It is going to pay for the doughnut
hole that so many seniors are worried about. It pays part D pre-
miums for PACE enrollees, and eliminates the PAGENET de-
ductible.
I thank all ofthe people who have worked very long and hard
to be able to come to a final vote today, and look forward to a
very quick passage in the House as well.
The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions of
the Constitution and were as follows, viz:
YEA.50
Armstrong
Boscola
Brightbill
Browne
Conti
Corman
Costa
Dinniman
Earll
Erickson
Ferlo
Fontana
Fumo
Gordner
Greenleaf
Hughes
Jubelirer
Kasunic
Kitchen
LaValle
Lemmond
Logan
Madigan
Mellow
Musto
O'Pake
Orie
Piccola
Pileggi
Pippy
Punt
Rafiferty
Regola
Rhoades
Robbins
Scamati
Stack
Stout
Tartaglione
Tomlinson
Vance
Washington
Waugh
Wenger
White, Donald
White, Mary Jo
Williams, Constance
Wonderling
Wozniak
NAY-0
"aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.
Ordered, That the Secretary ofthe Senate present said bill to
the House of Representatives for concurrence.
CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR RESUMED
BILL VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR
BILL OVER IN ORDER
SB 997 ~ Without objection, the bill was passed over in its
order at the request of Senator BRIGHTBILL.
THIRD CONSIDERATION CALENDAR
BILLS REREPORTED FROM COMMITTEE AS
AMENDED OVER IN ORDER
SB 772 ~ Without objection, the bill was passed over in its
order at the request of Senator BRIGHTBILL.
SB 1090 (Pr. No. 1887) - The Senate proceeded to consider-
An Act amending the act of January 17, 1968 (P.L.ll, No.5),
known as The Minimum Wage Act of 1968, giving effect to Federal
changes in wage rates; providing for preemption; and making editorial
changes.
On the question,
Senator BRIGHTBILL. Madam President, I request that Sen-
ate Bill No. 1090 go over in its order.
OBJECTION TO SB 1090 GOING
OVER IN ORDER
from Philadelphia, Senator Tartaglione.
Senator TARTAGLIONE. Madam President, I object to Sen-
ate Bill No. 1090 going over, and I would like a roll-call vote.

EXHIBIT PX-51

2006 LEGISLATIVE JOURNALHOUSE 1139
You are right, Gary was a friend to me and to you and
certainly to the Speaker, but you need to know something
about Gary. Police work was not his first job. He was not a
fresh-faced, well-scrubbed rookie. He was hard, tough as nails
from the hard, tough-as-nails neighborhood in Philadelphia.
He was a Teamster before he became a police officer. He had a
nose for trouble. The night I heard that he was shot, I thought if
they can shoot Gary Skerski, no one is safe, not in Philadelphia,
not in Pennsylvania, not in this country. He was wily, he was
street-smart, and violence is everywhere, and it happened to
Gary that night.
As Representative Taylor said, we interacted with Gary on a
daily basis with literally hundreds of problems, and I have had
hundreds of conversations with Officer Skerski, and he was not
just a friend, he was a good friend, and whatever problem we
talked about, whether it was an abandoned car, whether it was a
troubled neighbor, whether it was some neighborhood dispute, a
protest, a march, a vigil, we always ended our conversations by
talking about family. People need to know that.
Gary had nine jobs, I think. Not only was he working the
night he was killed, working overtime, but he worked a number
of other jobs, as is the wont of many public servants. We ended
every conversation by talking about his family, and he died that
night earning a living for his family.
Politicians were part of his life, police work was part of his
life, but his whole life was his wife, Anne; his son, Robert; his
daughter, Nicole; and his mother and father. So he was a
policeman, he was a former Teamster, he was a problem-solver,
he was a friend of politicians, but his most important job was
husband, father, and loving son, and I know we will all miss
him.
Will the House adopt the resolution?
YEAS198
Adolph Fichter Maitland Ruffing
Allen Flaherty Major Sabatina
Argall Fleagle Manderino Sainato
Armstrong Flick Mann Samuelson
Baker Forcier Markosek Santoni
Baldwin Frankel Marsico Saylor
Barrar Freeman McCall Scavello
Bastian Gabig McGeehan Schroder
Bebko-Jones Gannon McIlhattan Semmel
Belardi Geist McIlhinney Shaner
Belfanti George McNaughton Shapiro
Benninghoff Gerber Melio Siptroth
Beyer Gergely Metcalfe Smith, B.
Biancucci Gillespie Micozzie Smith, S. H.
Birmelin Gingrich Millard Solobay
Bishop Godshall Miller, R. Sonney
Blackwell Good Miller, S. Staback
Blaum Goodman Mundy Stairs
Boyd Grell Mustio Steil
Bunt Grucela Myers Stern
Buxton Gruitza Nailor Stetler
Caltagirone Haluska Nickol Stevenson, R.
Cappelli Hanna OBrien Stevenson, T.
Casorio Harhai Oliver Sturla
Causer Harhart ONeill Surra
Cawley Harper Pallone Tangretti
Civera Harris Parker Taylor, E. Z.
Clymer Hasay Payne Taylor, J.
Cohen Hennessey Petrarca Thomas
Corrigan Herman Petri Tigue
Costa Hershey Petrone True
Crahalla Hess Phillips Turzai
Creighton Hickernell Pickett Veon
Cruz Hutchinson Pistella Vitali
Curry James Preston Walko
Daley Josephs Pyle Wansacz
Dally Kauffman Quigley Waters
DeLuca Keller, M. Ramaley Watson
Denlinger Keller, W. Rapp Wheatley
Dermody Kenney Raymond Williams
DeWeese Killion Readshaw Wilt
DiGirolamo Kirkland Reed Wojnaroski
Diven Kotik Reichley Wright
Eachus Leach Rieger Yewcic
Ellis Lederer Roberts Youngblood
Evans, D. Leh Roebuck Yudichak
Evans, J. Lescovitz Rohrer Zug
Fabrizio Levdansky Rooney
Fairchild Mackereth Ross Perzel,
Feese Maher Rubley Speaker
NAYS0

NOT VOTING0

EXCUSED5

Cornell LaGrotta McGill Sather
Donatucci
The majority having voted in the affirmative, the question
was determined in the affirmative and the resolution was
adopted.
The House proceeded to third consideration of HB 2381,
PN 3754, entitled:
A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, providing for marriage between
one man and one woman.
On the question,
Mr. NAILOR offered the following amendment No.
A07329:
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 29), page 1, line 11, by inserting a period
after Commonwealth
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 29), page 1, line 11; page 2, lines 1
through 3, by striking out , and neither in line 11, page 1 and all of
lines 1 through 3, page 2
On the question,
gentleman, Mr. Nailor.
Mr. NAILOR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think we still are wrapped up in the resolution that we just
passed. It was very, very moving.
1140 LEGISLATIVE JOURNALHOUSE JUNE 6
We are dealing with a marriage amendment here to the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have
offered an amendment. We have a law, a statute, in place in
Pennsylvania, a law in place Defense of Marriage Act.
I supported that act. I voted for that bill in 1996, and to the best
of my knowledge, this act has never been challenged in the
courts of Pennsylvania.
I have a number of concerns that were brought to my
attention, and I would just like to share those with the members
at this point involving the definition and the language used to
define a marriage in Pennsylvania, particularly as it goes a little
bit further than the initial language of one man and one
woman and includes the language substantially equivalent to
and some others. Will hospitals deny gay people the right to
make medical decisions, or will partners even have the right to
visit each other if one is seriously ill? And again, these are
questions that were brought to my attention by individuals that
visited my office. Will the courts use the definition to ignore or
invalidate agreements on property legally or jointly purchased
and paid for by gay couples if one passes away? Will the courts
deny any type of survivor benefits to a partner? In New Jersey
survivor benefits were challenged by a municipality for a
woman who lost her partner in the line of duty as a member of a
police force. Could the courts in Pennsylvania refuse adoption
to gay couples or even invalidate ones already on the books?
Could Pennsylvania courts use the definition to deny
protection-from-abuse orders to couples, mainly straight
couples, who do not fit this language? In Ohio they already
have. Could Pennsylvania courts use the definition to deny
rights and benefits to senior citizens living together without a
marriage?
The unintended consequences of this legislation could go far
beyond defining a marriage, and that is why my definition is a
little different. My amendment would read Only a marriage
between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized
as a marriage in this Commonwealth. It defines marriage, but it
eliminates the unclear language that could very well be
challenged in courts to cause unintended harm to unmarried
couples, both heterosexual and gay relationships.
I do not know the answers to all of those questions that were
asked of me by constituents that visited my offices. I do not
know that anyone here really does know what the answer is, and
that is why I think we need to clearly define what a marriage is
in Pennsylvania and stop once it is defined and not come up
with ambiguous language that can be misinterpreted and harm
individuals simply because they are different than we are.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I certainly appreciate the intent of the maker of the
amendment, I have to rise to oppose the amendment, and I am
going to try and lay out for you very clearly why I believe this
amendment would be misguided at this point. We have worked
long and hard and looked at the other 19 States who have
amended their Constitutions to define marriage as one man and
one woman, and one consistent theme continues to be a part of
that discussion, and it is actually the issue of what would be
defined as civil unions. And quite frankly, the amendment that
is offered by the gentleman would carve out a status and it
would say that marriage is defined as one man and one woman;
however, it would not address the issue of marriagelike
relationships. If you look at the amendment that we are
proposing to the Constitution, it says it goes a little bit further
it says that marriage is one man and one woman, and the State
nor any of its political subdivisions shall create a union that is
identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage. That
language, language that has been used in other States
language that has been used in Ohio, language that has been
used in Florida is directed at trying to make certain that the
State does not create a marriagelike relationship, a civil union.
Well, many of you may say, well, Representative Boyd, what
is the problem with civil unions? Marriage is a man and a
woman, and men and men, women and women, whatever, is a
civil union. Well, the problem is simply this: Civil unions are
the Trojan horse of the activists who want to create a same-sex
marriage relationship in States, and what do I mean by that?
Right now in Connecticut, the Connecticut legislature did
precisely what the Representative was talking about. They
passed a law that said marriage is one man and one woman, but
they also created a status that was called civil unions, and
immediately after that law was passed, the gay and lesbian
coalition filed a lawsuit, they filed a lawsuit and they said that a
separate but equal status treats us as second-class citizens. You
are providing marriagelike benefits; we deserve to be married.
And they went further and they said that separate but equal is a
violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the
equal protection clause, and, you know, I am certainly not a
Rhodes scholar, but I remember my basic constitutional law,
and Brown v. the Board of Education clearly, clearly
enumerated that separate but equal is unconstitutional.
And so many, many legal scholars have said that the creation
and allowing the creation of civil unions is really allowing a
Trojan horse, whereby a State will say, yes, I believe that
marriage is one man and one woman, but I create this separate
but equal status. The courts, a lawsuit is filed, that is overturned,
and in fact, the full benefit of marriage is provided to unmarried
individuals.
Not just has this issue come up in Connecticut, but it has
also been discussed in California, and in a recent California
Superior Court decision, civil unions were determined to
undermine the States interest in preserving marriage, that
California granting marriagelike rights to same-sex couples
points to the conclusion that there is no rational State interest
in denying them the rights of marriage as well. California is a
half a step away from Massachusetts in having same-sex
marriage, and the whole essence of the marriage protection
amendment is to protect the definition of marriage as being a
relationship between one man and one woman.
I understand the essence of the argument that the gentleman
makes. I respect his point of view. I respectfully say to you that
if in fact you support the Nailor amendment at this point in
time, if in fact you vote for this, you are voting to kill the
marriage protection amendment. You are voting against
defining marriage as one man and one woman, because
effectually, it simply will not be the case. It will be overturned
by court challenge, and we will not have a marriage protection
amendment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If that is the
way you choose to vote, that is the way you choose to vote,
but please understand the subtlety of, well, I voted for it before
I voted against it. This will definitely undergird, undercut the
marriage protection amendment and is clearly a vote against
protecting the sanctity of gender-based marriage.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Frankel.
Mr. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This amendment may be the one thing that the previous
speaker and I agree on in the course of this evenings
discussion, but for different reasons.
I cannot support this amendment. I mean, we have in law
I was not here for that vote the Defense of Marriage Act, and
this basically takes that language and codifies it into the
Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. From my point of
view, I mean, I would not have been supportive of the DOMA
(Defense of Marriage Act) legislation initially, but from my
point of view, a constitution is a sacred document that basically
grants people rights and provides for their responsibilities. It is
not a document that should be utilized in order to define a group
as second-class citizens, and I just do not believe that we ought
to be toying with a document that historically, whether it is the
Federal Constitution or the State Constitution, is one that we
worked very hard, that guarantees us our rights and our
responsibilities, but it should not be used as it was certainly in
the 19th century to define a separate class of people with a
separate set of rights. I do not think that is a legitimate topic for
a constitution, whether it is the State or the Federal level.
So for those reasons I would also oppose this amendment.
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Speaker, for one of the few times in my legislative
career, I am going to disagree with Mr. Frankel. I believe that
the Nailor amendment is a worthwhile amendment. You know,
whatever happens in this legislative debate, we can be sure that
lawyers are going to make legal arguments. That is what
lawyers do. Mr. Boyd has quoted the legal arguments that are
made, and he has confused legal arguments with court
decisions. A legal argument is not the same thing as a court
decision.
Mr. Nailors amendment would allow civil unions; it would
allow other relationships between heterosexuals. Men and
women live together without getting married; men and women
sign various contracts; men and women have various unspoken
but nevertheless very real understandings. The legislation that is
introduced threatens to undermine all the understandings that
unmarried heterosexuals have together, and it goes far, far
beyond the purpose of this legislation.
I believe that Mr. Nailor is saying if you want to ban gay
marriage, let us ban gay marriage, but let us not drag everything
else into the picture. I do not understand how under State law
we could have an unconstitutional section of the Constitution.
Certainly gay marriage would not be unconstitutional under the
Pennsylvania Constitution with this amendment because it is
explicitly prohibited under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Mr. Boyd is saying, well, maybe it will be unconstitutional
under the Federal Constitution, but I do not think so. Gays are
not a protected class under the Federal Constitution. The
Supreme Court decides who is and who is not a protected class.
Racial minorities are protected classes to a major degree;
women are a protected class to a lesser degree. There has not
been any U.S. Supreme Court decision in the history of our
country holding that gay Americans or gays in general, whether
they are American citizens or not, are a protected class. The
arguments that Mr. Boyd makes are without any constitutional
justification at a Federal level and without any constitutional
justification at a State level.
As someone who is not keen on the idea of regulating the
behavior of individuals in a negative way, I understand very
much Mr. Frankels concerns. It certainly would be easier for
the voters to defeat the constitutional amendment if we had the
amendment as it is now written, but I think since we are being
presented with an opportunity to exempt many hundreds of
thousands of Pennsylvanians from the adverse effect of this
amendment, I think we ought to take that opportunity, we ought
to pass the Nailor amendment, and we ought to show our
constituents who would be adversely affected by the
constitutional amendment that we are being confronted with that
we care about their status and we are on their side.
I urge support for the Nailor amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Yewcic.
Mr. YEWCIC. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly rise to oppose the Nailor amendment for several
reasons.
He said in his opening remarks that he was not certain how
this would affect certain issues or rights that people may have,
and I wanted to make clear that what the Pennsylvania marriage
protection amendment will not do as written, it will not take any
existing rights away from anyone. It will not affect benefits
offered by private employers. It will not affect the rights of
unmarried couples or common-law marriages. It will not affect
wills, joint ownership of property, contracts, or agreements
between unmarried individuals. It does not discriminate against
anyone who wishes to get married under current law.
I think it is important to look and see that this marriage
protection amendment is written to protect marriage, to say that
marriage between one man and one woman in civil unions is
equal to marriage. It is just a backdoor approach. You cannot
say that we are going to have civil unions and give the same
rights as marriage, because it really is just a smoke screen to
destroy this amendment, and we ought to oppose this
amendment offered by Mr. Nailor for that reason.
The issue is, does Pennsylvania support marriage between
one man and one woman, and that is what we are to vote on.
This current amendment would destroy the concept because
civil unions are equal to marriage. There is no difference, and
I would ask that we oppose the Nailor amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Metcalfe.
Mr. METCALFE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Nailor amendment.
I wanted to make the members aware that they probably have
been contacted over the last several months by the Pennsylvania
For Marriage Coalition, a coalition that is made up of the
Pennsylvania Family Institute, the American Family
Association chapter here in Pennsylvania, Eagle Forum,
Concerned Women for America, Catholic Conference, many
groups that have joined together to try and help preserve the
historic and traditional definition of marriage as being between
a man and a woman and allowing the people of Pennsylvania to
be the ones that will define that through this process rather than
allowing some man or woman that dons the black robe, that sits
on a bench, to make that decision for us.
But these groups that have been working so hard to try and
protect marriage with this amendment, in conjunction with
Representative Boyds efforts and many of us Representative
Tom Yewcic and Katie True and Teresa Forcier and all of us
who have been working together on this issue as we have been
working to protect this, we have been receiving thousands of
signatures, Mr. Speaker, we have been receiving thousands of
signatures supporting the current language, and if the Nailor
amendment were adopted, it would change what thousands of
people have contacted us saying: that they want this language to
be proposed in the amendment to be voted on by them in a
future election once we get through this process.
So I would encourage anyone here who wants to support
marriage as being between one man and one woman and ensure
that judges are not allowed to redefine that for us, I would
encourage anyone supportive of that definition, supportive of
the Pennsylvania For Marriage Coalitions effort, anybody for
that should reject this amendment, the Nailor amendment, and
we should stay with the current language that is being proposed,
Mr. Speaker.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Leach.
Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise actually to agree with the gentleman from Butler
County in opposition to this amendment, although probably for
somewhat different reasons. I have been asked by the leadership
of the Value All Families Coalition to say that they ask for a
no vote on this amendment. They oppose this amendment.
This amendment, while better than the original amendment,
would still enshrine discrimination into our Constitution, and
we urge a no vote for that reason on that. Thank you.
Does the gentleman, Mr. Nailor, wish to be recognized? The
Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Nailor.
Mr. NAILOR. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a couple of final comments, and I think everybody pretty
much knows where we are coming from with this amendment.
First, voting for this amendment is in no way, shape, or form
trying to kill the bill, absolutely not. What I am trying to do
with my bill is I want to be clear. I am not promoting or
endorsing civil unions, as was suggested. My amendment does
not do that. It simply provides a clear definition of marriage,
and it removes ambiguous language, language that can impose
unintended harm on innocent individuals.
Substantially equivalent is language that is included in the
bill that I am removing. What does that mean? It is not clearly
defined. It will be defined by our courts and people that take it
there. I am removing that, putting a period before that part of
the sentence, and clearly defining a marriage as between one
man and one woman in Pennsylvania, and I think that is what
the people of Pennsylvania want.
YEAS70
Adolph Dermody Marsico Saylor
Baldwin Eachus Micozzie Semmel
Barrar Evans, D. Miller, R. Shaner
Belardi Feese Mundy Siptroth
Belfanti Flaherty Nailor Smith, B.
Beyer Flick Nickol Sonney
Biancucci Freeman ONeill Staback
Blaum Gannon Ramaley Steil
Buxton Gillespie Reed Stetler
Cawley Gingrich Reichley Stevenson, T.
Civera Good Rieger Sturla
Cohen Goodman Roberts Taylor, J.
Costa Gruitza Ross Veon
Crahalla Harhart Rubley Vitali
Curry Kenney Ruffing Wansacz
Daley Lederer Sainato Watson
Dally Levdansky Samuelson Yudichak
DeLuca Mackereth
NAYS127
Allen Geist Major Rohrer
Argall George Manderino Rooney
Armstrong Gerber Mann Sabatina
Baker Gergely Markosek Santoni
Bastian Godshall McCall Scavello
Bebko-Jones Grell McGeehan Schroder
Benninghoff Grucela McIlhattan Shapiro
Birmelin Haluska McIlhinney Smith, S. H.
Bishop Hanna McNaughton Solobay
Blackwell Harhai Melio Stairs
Boyd Harper Metcalfe Stern
Bunt Harris Millard Stevenson, R.
Caltagirone Hasay Miller, S. Surra
Cappelli Hennessey Mustio Tangretti
Casorio Herman Myers Taylor, E. Z.
Causer Hershey Oliver Thomas
Clymer Hess Pallone Tigue
Corrigan Hickernell Parker True
Creighton Hutchinson Payne Turzai
Cruz James Petrarca Walko
Denlinger Josephs Petri Waters
DeWeese Kauffman Petrone Wheatley
DiGirolamo Keller, M. Phillips Williams
Diven Keller, W. Pickett Wilt
Ellis Killion Pistella Wojnaroski
Evans, J. Kirkland Preston Wright
Fabrizio Kotik Pyle Yewcic
Fairchild Leach Quigley Youngblood
Fichter Leh Rapp Zug
Fleagle Lescovitz Raymond
Forcier Maher Readshaw Perzel,
Frankel Maitland Roebuck Speaker
Gabig
NOT VOTING0

EXCUSED6

Cornell LaGrotta OBrien Sather
Donatucci McGill
Less than the majority having voted in the affirmative, the
question was determined in the negative and the amendment
was not agreed to.
Mr. BOYD offered the following amendment No. A07783:
Amend Title, page 1, lines 1 through 3, by striking out all of said
lines and inserting
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, providing for marriage between one man and
one woman.
Amend Bill, page 1, lines 6 through 11; page 2, lines 1
through 26, by striking out all of said lines on said pages and inserting
Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of
Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:
That Article I be amended by adding a section to read:
29. Marriage.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid
or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the
Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or
recognize a legal union identical or substantially equivalent to that of
marriage for unmarried individuals.
Section 2. (a) Upon the first passage by the General Assembly
of this proposed constitutional amendment, the Secretary of the
Commonwealth shall proceed immediately to comply with the
advertising requirements of section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution
of Pennsylvania and shall transmit the required advertisements to
two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers are
published in sufficient time after passage of this proposed
constitutional amendment.
(b) Upon the second passage by the General Assembly of this
proposed constitutional amendment, the Secretary of the
Commonwealth shall proceed immediately to comply with the
advertising requirements of section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution
of Pennsylvania and shall transmit the required advertisements to
two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers are
published in sufficient time after passage of this proposed
constitutional amendment. The Secretary of the Commonwealth shall
submit this proposed constitutional amendment to the qualified electors
of this Commonwealth at the first primary, general or municipal
election which meets the requirements of and is in conformance with
section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and which
occurs at least three months after the proposed constitutional
amendment is passed by the General Assembly.
On the question,
gentleman, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much.
I appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, amendment A7783 is an amendment that
makes a small change to the marriage protection amendment. It
was introduced in January of this year.
As you know, the Pennsylvania marriage protection
amendment is a proposal to add section 29 to Article I of the
Pennsylvania Constitution. A7783 changes the proposed
language to read, and I am going to read it for you, Only a
marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the
Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create
or recognize a legal union and that is the change, the word
status to union identical or substantially equivalent to
that of marriage for unmarried individuals. We are proposing
to change the wording in line 16.
We believe marriage is the union of one man and
one woman, a designation that is outlined in Pennsylvanias
Defense of Marriage Act, that has already been referred to
today, that was passed by the General Assembly in 1996, a
designation recognized by civilizations for thousands of years, a
designation that is recognized by cultures and religions all
across the globe, and a designation that is recognized by the vast
majority of Pennsylvanians. And with this seemingly
overwhelming understanding and agreement on the definition of
marriage, many have asked, why is an amendment to the
Pennsylvania Constitution necessary at all, and that is a valid
question.
In 1996 when this body passed the Defense of Marriage Act,
it did so with overwhelming bipartisan support. In that same
year, President William Jefferson Clinton signed a Federal
Defense of Marriage Act providing for similar protection of
marriage at the Federal level. However, and this is extremely
important, Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years there has been a
slow but steady erosion of the clear, crisp lines that define
marriage throughout the nation. Activists in other nations
pressed for and accomplished same-sex marriages. The
Netherlands and Canada have legalized same-sex marriages.
In America, the erosion has been through a series of court
decisions. Vermont and Connecticut legalized civil unions, and
then in 2004, by a directive of the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts, that State became the first U.S. State to legalize
same-sex marriage. Since 2004, courts in many States Iowa,
Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Georgia, Utah, and I could
go on have been asked to consider the legality and the
constitutionality of the defense of marriage provisions, and the
question that looms heavy on many is, what will those courts
decide?
Pennsylvania is vulnerable, Mr. Speaker, to precisely the
challenges initiated in our neighboring States. Because no
formal case has been filed to date does not mean the exposure
for Pennsylvania is less real or less imminent. And prudence
dictates a proactive approach. As you know, amending the
Constitution is a multiyear process requiring numerous hurdles
for constitutional change. Waiting until the horse is out of the
barn hardly seems like the time to repair the fence.
Time is critical. Prior to going to the people for a vote,
the amendment must pass two successive sessions of the
General Assembly. Effectually it must be done in both the
House and the Senate by June 30 of this year for the amendment
to meet the constitutional requirements for passage in the
05-06 session.
One last point, Mr. Speaker, regarding constitutional
amendments. They are done by voter referendum. The ultimate
decision on the definition of marriage should be up to the
people of Pennsylvania. Please listen to this, Mr. Speaker. In a
recent Mason-Dixon poll, Pennsylvanians, when asked this
question, who do you feel should decide the definition of
marriage in Pennsylvania, the voters or the courts, 73 percent
said the voters, 14 percent said the courts, and 13 percent were
not sure. I believe, Mr. Speaker, for no other reason than this,
the results of that poll, that we have a moral responsibility to
pass this amendment. We have a responsibility to give the
people the right to vote to change their own Constitution.
If the people believe marriage is not a union of one man and
one woman, the people will not enshrine this definition in their
Constitution.
Some may say, okay, Scott, marriage is the union of one man
and one woman, but what about civil unions? Well, in the first
amendment offered this evening, we already addressed that
issue, and clearly the courts have defined that a separate class is
not something that should be put into our Constitution.
As I already read, in the California Superior Court decision, the
court weighed in very, very poignantly on that issue.
There are a number of additional points that I want to make
before I yield the floor on this issue. There has been much
consternation expressed about the effect the MPA, the marriage
protection amendment, will have on health benefits provided by
employers to domestic partners. Those of you who are
concerned about this issue, I encourage you to pay attention.
I will give you a short and truthful answer. If Pennsylvania
adopts the marriage protection amendment in its proposed form
that is before you tonight, no effect on health benefit packages
provided by private or public employers will be seen. To
document this assertion, one needs only to look at the current
status of same-sex benefit plans in operation in the
Commonwealth today.
Currently Pennsylvania has a law that defines marriage as
one man and one woman, yet businesses all across Pennsylvania
are providing benefits to domestic partners. The city of
Philadelphia and Montgomery County provide benefits to life
partners and domestic partners. If the basis for providing these
benefits was marital status and these individuals are currently
not married or recognized as married under Pennsylvania law,
then how are they getting those benefits? Well, the answer is
quite simple. It is because those benefits are provided based on
some status other than marriage.
This was precisely the finding of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court when it was specifically asked to review the city
of Philadelphias same-sex benefit program. Asking whether the
city could provide health benefits to domestic partners this is
right out of the court journal there are considerable
differences between marriage and the Life Partner relationship.
Life Partnership is simply not the functional equivalent of
marriage. The court went on to postulate that benefits may be
provided for a myriad of reasons having nothing to do with
marriage. Life partner benefits are provided to compete with
industry and to attract the best and brightest employees. The key
point is this: Domestic partnership benefits are provided to
employees based on a status that is not specifically related to
marital union.
Further documentation of this fact is from a recent court
decision in Utah. In a five-page opinion, Third District justice
Stephen Roth wrote this word in an issue regarding a Defense of
Marriage Act in their Constitution it is almost identical to ours
he wrote, adult designees the city of Salt Lake provided
benefits to adult designees adult designees dependent
insurance plan is ultimately defined by the relationship between
an employer and an employee and has NOTHING to do with
marriage. The Adult Designee Benefit therefore is not
substantially equivalent please understand, this is the
judges ruling; the exact language we have in our proposed
amendment is substantially equivalent Benefit therefore is
not substantially equivalent to any benefit provided under
Utah law to a man and woman because they are married, nor
does it make the relationship between employee and an adult
designee substantially equivalent in legal effect to marriage
between a man and a woman.
While it is clear that the MPA will have no effect on public
employee benefit packages, it is abundantly crystal clear that
the MPA will have absolutely no effect on private employer
benefit packages at all. Those employee benefit packages are
contractual agreements between employees and employers, and
the State has no jurisdiction in defining the criteria by which
those benefits are paid to domestic partners.
Let us tackle another myth that opponents of the MPA have
alleged will occur in Pennsylvania if the marriage protection
language is added to the Constitution. Many the ACLU
(American Civil Liberties Union), domestic violence groups
have cited problems in Ohio, which adopted a marriage
protection amendment in 2004. They have asserted that if
adopted, the MPA will preclude domestic partners in
Pennsylvania from the protections provided by the Pennsylvania
protection-from-abuse statutes. This is simply untrue. The
concern of domestic violence groups is clearly specific to Ohio
and is clearly unique to Ohio. Ohio domestic law those of you
who are attorneys, listen to this the Ohio domestic violence
law refers to family or household member and then defines
family or household member as a person living as a spouse,
or a former spouse. In Ohio, a PFA (protection from abuse) is
directed only at a spousal-equivalent relationship, and it put it in
conflict with the marriage protection amendment, but that
situation does not exist in Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, the statute, the abuse statute, defines
abuse as the occurrence of one or more of the following acts
between family or household members, sexual or intimate
partners or persons who share biological parenthood.
Protection-from-abuse orders are issued in Pennsylvania
regardless of marital status. They will continue to function with
the full force of Pennsylvanias protection-from-abuse laws
whether the marriage protection amendment is adopted or not.
And the final subject I wish to address as we consider the
marriage protection amendment is the simple question, why is
this important at all? Who cares? I mean, ultimately, who cares
if the court redefines marriage? What is the big deal? What
impact does it have? What impact does the marriage of
Adam and Steve have on your marriage, Representative Boyd?
Are you not just and I have been called this, by the way are
you not just a homophobic bigot who cannot stand the thought
of homosexual marriage? Well, the short answer is, the
relationship of a gay couple will have no impact on my close to
28 years of happily married bliss to my lovely wife, Nancy.
But that is not the question that is before the Assembly today.
Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is entitled to be heard.
Keep the noise levels down.
That is not the question that is before the Assembly today.
The question is what impact this will have on society if we
allow the courts to redefine the institution of marriage.
There are three fundamental questions before us today.
Without the marriage protection amendment, what ultimately
will marriage and the family look like 30 years from now? I ask
you, what is the family going to look like 30 years from now?
What broader impact will this redefinition have on our society
as a whole? And who and how will those determinations be
made? Well, I am going to endeavor to answer this very
succinctly.
Without the marriage protection amendment, what will
marriage and the family look like in 30 years? The answer is,
I do not know and neither do you. Nobody knows, because we
simply have not experienced the long-term effects of this
newest sexual revolution. Allowing the courts to redefine
marriage will be jettisoning our State into a vast untested social
experiment.
We have glimpses of the future, though. I have with me the
March 20 issue of Newsweek magazine. I do not know if you
can read the headline: Polygamists, Unite. This is March 20
of this year, 2006. Page 52, the society section. In the article it
says polygamists are emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage
movement. In the year 2036, how many of you believe that
polygamy will be prevalent? I do not know whether it will be or
not, but it appears that some folks want to push that envelope.
The Washington Times reported that in Canada, where
same-sex marriage was legalized, Prime Minister Paul Martin
commissioned a study to debunk conservative assertions that the
legalization of same-sex marriages was birthing a move to
overturn antipolygamy laws. Oops, be careful what you wish
for, you just might get it. The study confirmed that a legal
challenge to Canadas antipolygamy laws would be successful.
This is a quote: Why criminalize behavior? asked Martha
Bailey, one of the studys three law professors that authored
this study. We dont criminalize adultery, do we?
Probably the most disconcerting glimpse into the future came
from an AP (Associated Press) report out of the Washington
Post last Wednesday. This is last Wednesday, Mr. Speaker,
May 31, 2006. The newest movement out of the Netherlands
where did the same-sex marriage movement start? the first
nation to legalize it, the Netherlands out of the Netherlands in
an AP report, Washington Post, mainstream had an article that
said that there was a new political party calling for the lowering
of the age of consensual sex from 16 to 12 from 16 to 12.
A political party has formed called the Charity, Freedom and
Diversity Party, and its platform advocates lowering the age of
consent. The party president said forbidding children from sex
makes them curious.
The Boston Globe reported in April of this year about a
Lexington second grade teacher who read a fairytale about
gay marriage to a class without parental notification. The King
& King, a book where two princes kiss at the end, was first
published in the Netherlands, recently translated into English,
and now it is a part of the curriculum in the Lexington public
school system. The superintendent of schools said that the
school has no obligation to notify parents about the book.
Quote: Lexington is committed to teaching children about the
world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is
legal.
Is this a problem? Many believe that it is not. The point is
that the failure to pass the MPA will facilitate the redefinition of
marriage and family, and the change will penetrate every
institution of society.
Mr. Speaker, it is an incredibly important piece of
legislation. In the interests of time and dinner, I will save my
final remarks for passage. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Leach.
Mr. Speaker, may I briefly interrogate the maker of the
amendment?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is in order and may proceed.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that the
purpose of this amendment is to prevent the court from striking
down DOMA and redefining marriage in a way that would
include same-sex marriage? Is that basically the goal of this
amendment?
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, the goal of the amendment is to
allow the people of Pennsylvania to vote as to whether or not to
define marriage as a union between one man and one woman
and for the State or any of its political subdivisions to, you
know, not have a substantially equivalent relationship.
Mr. LEACH. But the gentleman in his elocution on the
amendment, I believe, talked about judges redefining marriage.
Is that something you are trying to prevent with this
amendment?
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, we believe that it is important,
if and when the current Defense of Marriage Act would be
challenged by a court, that there is constitutional clarity within
Pennsylvanias Constitution. The Constitution is the expressed
will of the people. Putting their definition of marriage, what
they believe marriage would be, in the Constitution is the goal.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, is it not true then that a judge
who is bent on redefining marriage could strike down this
constitutional amendment just as easily as he could strike down
DOMA by simply invoking Federal law; in other words, saying
that this amendment, this constitutional amendment to the State
Constitution, violates the Federal equal protection clause, for
example. The judge could strike down this amendment if he
wanted to just as easily as he could strike down DOMA. Is that
not true, as a matter of law?
Mr. BOYD. Well, Mr. Speaker, as a nonattorney, as a matter
of law, my understanding is that if and when there would be a
court challenge or when there would be a court challenge, the
court will look at the will of the people in the Constitution and
they will use that as guidance as to what the definition of
marriage would be.
Mr. LEACH. Okay. Mr. Speaker, that is actually not one of
the prongs of constitutional analysis that the court will look at,
but I will move on.
Mr. Speaker, the maker of the amendment discussed some
bad things that will happen, some negative consequences that
will happen, if marriage is redefined. Now, marriage has been
allowed between same-sex couples in Massachusetts now for
I think almost 2 years, and I am just wondering if the maker of
the amendment can illustrate for us specifically what bad things
have happened in Massachusetts as a result of marriage between
same-sex couples being legal there?
Mr. BOYD. Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess the definition of
what you and I think are bad may be different.
Mr. LEACH. Okay. Well, if we look to Massachusetts as
an example of what will happen to Pennsylvania if we have
same-sex marriage, can you point to something in
Massachusetts that would give us pause here in Pennsylvania,
that would make us say, oh, my gosh, we do not want that to
happen here, and if you have something like that, if you have
any specific citations for the information you gave me, any
studies, anything like that, I would be grateful.
Mr. BOYD. Well, I did reference actually one thing
anecdotally. Certainly the concern about the change in
curriculum within elementary schools is one. Another one is
that Catholic Charities, which was the largest agency providing
adoptions, because their religious tenet was to not place children
in same-sex homes, the State threatened to pull their license
because they said same-sex marriage was legal in
Massachusetts, so no longer does Catholic Charities provide
adoptions in the State of Massachusetts.
Mr. LEACH. Okay. I guess that is Catholic Charities
choice, but maybe I can narrow my question to address
specifically what we are talking about today. Have there been
any negative impacts that you can point to on heterosexual
marriage that have resulted in Massachusetts? Are heterosexuals
getting married less often? Not having as many kids? Getting
divorced more? Is there anything like that? There has been a lot
of discussion about preserving the sanctity of marriage. I am
just wondering how heterosexual marriage has fared in a State
where same-sex couples can get married.
Mr. BOYD. Well, it has only been about 18 months since the
court made the ruling and legalized same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts. However, I can tell you, for example in the
Netherlands, the number of children being born out of wedlock,
and there has been a general deterioration of the concept of
marriage, either among homosexuals or heterosexuals, and
Mr. LEACH. Wait; I am sorry. What study is that, and do
they attribute that, does that study attribute that to gay
marriage?
Mr. BOYD. The study just tracks it postlegalization of
same-sex marriage in the Netherlands.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, was the maker of the amendment
aware that since gay marriage, I am told, has been legal in
Massachusetts, the divorce rate among heterosexual couples has
declined. Are you aware of that?
Mr. BOYD. Where?
Mr. LEACH. Massachusetts.
Mr. BOYD. Did that study attribute that to the legalization of
same-sex marriage?
Mr. LEACH. No; no. No, Mr. Speaker, it did what you did.
It just
The SPEAKER. Would the gentleman yield. Would the
gentleman yield.
Mr. LEACH. Yes.
The SPEAKER. The purpose of interrogation is for a
member to find out information from another member, not to
affirm or disclaim information from a further member
somewhere else. So please keep You can use that in your
arguments, but you cannot ask any questions.
Mr. LEACH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will move on.
I only have one more question.
I have one more question, which is, there has been some
discussion here and elsewhere about the impact of children on
all of this. In crafting the amendment and the bill, did you
consider, and if you did, can you walk us through how you
considered, the impact of this amendment on the children of
gay couples?
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental intent of the
marriage protection amendment is to protect the traditional
definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
Mr. Speaker, I have concluded my interrogation. If I may
just make a few comments on the amendment.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman is in order and may proceed.
Mr. Speaker, some people have argued that this
amendment will adversely affect domestic partnership acts, the
protection-from-abuse enforcement, common-law marriages, a
number of other things, and I agree with a lot of those
arguments, Mr. Speaker, but my opposition to this amendment
is much more fundamental.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to make a legal point.
The legal point I want to make is that this amendment does
nothing to protect the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage. If a
judge or a panel of judges wanted to strike down DOMA, which
is apparently the fear that is driving this amendment, then they
could do that, and we have seen that in other States; the maker
of the amendment is right. But if they wanted to do that in
Pennsylvania, even with this amendment, they could do that just
as easily. If I am a judge, either a State or Federal judge, who
wants to strike down the exclusivity and allow same-sex
marriage, all I have to do under the supremacy clause is cite
Federal law. All I have to do is say that this violates the
14th Amendments equal protection clause. Pennsylvania may
not pass a constitutional amendment that violates the equal
protection clause to the 14th Amendment. So if I am a judge
and I do not care what the law is and I just want to strike down
this law, I just want to allow gay marriage, I have the tools to do
that. There is nothing about this amendment that would do that.
So people should be clear that as a matter of law, this
amendment does nothing to stop judges. All this amendment
does is make it harder for future legislatures, which inevitably
will happen, to want to repeal DOMA. It makes it more difficult
to do that, but that is all it does. There is a canard to say that the
constitutional amendment prohibits the courts from citing
Federal law.
I want to say a couple more words about the argument,
because we have heard about activist judges a lot, Mr. Speaker,
and I have been trying to figure out what the term activist
judges means. I have heard that a lot, and I think I know what
it means. I think it means that an activist court is any court that
makes a decision that I disagree with, because there is no
consistent decision on activist judges, and in fact, let us look at
the Massachusetts court which has cited this judicial activism.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court did not wake up one day and
say, let us legalize same-sex marriage. The Massachusetts
Supreme Court took a case that was before it and was
interpreting a democratically passed antidiscrimination statute
in Massachusetts, and the statute said you cannot discriminate
specifically on the basis of sexual orientation. So the court had
no choice but to strike down the ban on same-sex marriage. An
activist judge an activist judge, Mr. Speaker would have
said, you know, the law requires me to strike down a
discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage, but I am against
same-sex marriage, I do not think it is a good idea, so I am
going to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage because I do not
like it. That would have been judicial activism. But this was not
judicial activism; this was a court interpreting a law which had
been passed by the people who did not want discrimination in
the State of Massachusetts based on that.
You know, Mr. Speaker, for much of the nations history,
marriage was defined as the union between one man and
one woman of the same race. That was the law throughout the
land for many, many years. But in 1967 the United States
Supreme Court in a case called Loving v. Virginia struck down
the antimiscegenation statutes. An activist court, I suppose you
could say, said such laws were discriminatory and
unconstitutional. Now, Mr. Speaker, we would never think of
going back. Who here in this room is willing to stand up and
say, Loving v. Virginia should be overruled; the court was
wrong to overturn the ban on interracial marriage? The fact is,
the United States Supreme Court, again interpreting a
democratically elected constitutional amendment, redefined
marriage and made it better by making it more inclusive.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to touch on some of the exchange
that I had with the maker of the amendment. This is portrayed
as an effort to save marriage, and the obvious question is, from
what? And I have asked this question of people all over the
State who have e-mailed me, who have called me on this thing.
We need to save marriage, We need to protect marriage,
and I say, from what? And I want to know specifically from
what. I want to know, are heterosexual couples not going to get
married? Are they going to get divorced more? Are they not
going to have children? Is there going to be more domestic
violence? Are they What is it? Fewer vacations? I mean,
what is it that is going to happen to heterosexual couples as a
result of that?
Now, we have a State, Mr. Speaker, Massachusetts, that has
gay marriage, and in 18 months the divorce rate has gone down.
Now, I do not attribute that to the gay-marriage legalization, but
that is certainly as strong an argument for that as there was for
the maker of the amendment who said, well, we are just
correlating. Two things happened at the same time; there must
be a correlation. If that is true, then you have got to give credit
to the gay folks of Massachusetts for lowering the heterosexual
divorce rate. Now, I do not make that claim, but that is where
that argument goes.
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to just claim that you are
protecting the sanctity of marriage. If you have no specific
adverse effects that you can point to to gay marriage, you are
not protecting anything from anything. You are just
discriminating, period. In Massachusetts, in fact, gay marriage
has caused so few problems or no problems that much of the
original opposition to it has melted away.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make an economic argument very
briefly, because I know we are a body that always talks about
economic development and how we want to make Pennsylvania
more job-friendly and make Pennsylvania a more economically
vibrant place. Mr. Speaker, how do we attract gay workers to
Pennsylvania? How do we get the best medical researchers or
computer programmers or mathematicians to come to
Pennsylvania if they are gay and we pass an amendment that
says very, very clearly, you are not welcome here? How do we
attract a Fortune 500 company to build a new plant in
Pennsylvania when the companys gay employees and
shareholders are going to say, do not dare move that plant to
Pennsylvania, do not dare move that plant to a place that
discriminates?
You know, much of the impetus for the Old South
abandoning its racist past was its desire to be known as the
New South, a progressive area, and bring economic
development to the region. Yet ironically, we are contemplating
going in exactly the opposite direction, Mr. Speaker. While we
struggle to improve our economy, we are embracing
discrimination and sending economic opportunities away.
Mr. Speaker, we also have to consider, how do we want
gay couples to live? You know, everyone here represents
gay people. Gay people are our friends, they are our neighbors,
they are our family, and they are our constituents. How do you
want them to live? Abraham Lincoln said, whenever I hear
anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried
on him personally. Could you live your life alone without a
partner? Could you live your life as a second-class citizen
because of the partner you choose? Could you live your life
fighting to get basic rights survivorship, the right to make
medical decisions, the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital
that everyone else takes for granted? Could you change your
sexuality to please some other segment of society or someone
elses religious teachings? In other words, as heterosexuals,
could you choose to be gay in order to conform? If you answer
no to any of these questions, Mr. Speaker, if you cannot live
your life this way, then I ask, how can you ask anyone else to?
Robert Ingersoll said, give to every human being every right
that you claim for yourself. Twenty-eight percent of gay couples
have children. What do we want them to do? What message do
we want to send to their children? What alternative are we
offering them? We hear the phrase living in sin. Do we want
gay couples only alternative to be living in sin, or do we want
to encourage them to build stable, monogamous, permanent,
healthy, legally recognized families like the rest of us? If we do
not allow them to marry or even form civil unions, Mr. Speaker,
what alternative are we offering them? What do we want the
tens of thousands of gay couples in Pennsylvania to do, and how
do we promote the idea of family if we put up impediments to
gay Pennsylvanians forming families?
We tell teens to abstain from sex until marriage. What are we
telling gay teens? What do you tell gay teens? If you had a gay
teen ask you, You say to abstain until marriage, what am I
supposed to do? what would you tell them? Why send this
message?
I want to tell you very briefly about a 10-year-old girl
I spoke to on this. She has two women who are a lesbian couple
who are her parents. They are the only parents she has ever
known, and we were talking about this amendment, and she
said, what are they trying to say? Are they trying to say that my
family is not a family? Are they trying to say that there is
something wrong with me? Why would we send this harsh and
heartless message to this 10-year-old girl and to Pennsylvanias
other children of gay couples? We talk about kids. What about
these kids?
Mr. Speaker, if you vote for this amendment, you will regret
this vote. Strom Thurmond, George Wallace later in their lives
they all regretted the discriminatory votes that they cast as
young men. Others like Senator Helms and Senator Bilbo and
Governor Barnett and Lester Maddox did not, but look how
they are regarded by history today. They may have voted what
the polls in their district or their State said to do at the time, but
no one will be building monuments to them. They are not well
regarded by history.
We will all leave this place sometime, Mr. Speaker. Do we
want our legacy to be writing, for the first time ever,
discrimination into the Constitution? Do we want our legacy to
be, for the first time ever, using our sacred, basic document not
to expand human rights but to restrict human rights, not to
expand the number of people who are included in the family,
the human family that Pennsylvania is, but to reduce the number
of people who are included in our family?
I would like to finish, Mr. Speaker, by reading you a couple
of quotes which show what some other people are saying about
gay marriage.
In the interests of maintaining and promoting mental health,
the APA (American Psychiatric Association) supports the
legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights,
benefits and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and
opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits and
responsibilities.
Rev. John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ:
The church should affirm the rights of gay and
lesbianpersons to have their covenanted relationships
recognized by the state as marriages equal in name, privileges,
and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples.
Herbert Chilstrom, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church: I am convinced that our churches and our society must
affirm gay and lesbian...persons as completely equal in every
way with those...who are heterosexual. It is time for
thosewho believe that the Gospel is for all and who believe
that civil rights are for all to speak up.
In the course of our lifetimes, we change our minds about
things we once thought were settled forever. This has really
become a justice issue. Gays are being treated unjustly, both by
the church and by society. And it is not Gods way. Any true
conservative who cares about stability in our society ought to
support gay unions, and ought to bless these relationships.
Bob Barr, former Republican Congressman of Georgia: The
Federal Marriage Amendment, simply put, it takes a power
away from the states that they have historically enjoyed.
We meddle with the Constitution to our own peril. If we
begin to treat the Constitution as our personal sandbox, in which
to build and destroy castles as we please, we risk diluting the
grandeur of having a Constitution in the first place.
Two more. Gay and lesbian people have families, and their
families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or
civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex
marriages is a form of gay bashing. Coretta Scott King.
And finally, as far as Im concerned, Heather and I are
married. Weve built a home and a life together. She is the
person I hope to spend the rest of my life with.
Were just waiting for the state and federal laws to catch up
with us. Mary Cheney, daughter of the Vice President.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the members to do the right thing here,
to examine your consciences, to think of how you would want
to be treated, to think about how your child would want to be
treated and you would want your child to be treated in the event
that you had a gay child, and we see by some of the people who
have gay children, this does not discriminate based on ideology
or political party. There are gay people in many, many families,
and what would happen if one of our loved ones was gay? How
would we want them to be treated? How would we want their
partner to be treated? How would we want their children to be
treated?
This is a basic issue of justice and common sense and
fairness, Mr. Speaker, and I urge a no vote. Thank you.
The gentleman, Mr. Yewcic.
I rise to support the Boyd amendment. Marriage is the oldest
God-given institution we have. The family is the bedrock of
every civilization around the world. As a matter of fact, if you
took a globe and spun it and arbitrarily stuck your finger and
stopped it, every world religion, every culture, every society
supports the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Other countries that have looked at this issue have come to
the same conclusion we have come to today; such as in France,
of all places, who got it right when they essentially said in a
report that Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition
of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes
rights and duties, and that is designed to provide for the care
and harmonious development of the child. We should all, we
should all be considerate of the consequences for the childs
development and construction of his or her identity. Having
two fathers or having two mothers is biologically neither real
nor plausible. If a court, an activist court, or a legislature tries to
redefine marriage, one only has to look around the world at their
example of what happened there.
It has already been mentioned that the Netherlands was the
first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, and in
that country the argument was used by gay marriage advocates
who rejected the idea that marriage is intrinsically connected to
parenthood, and the Dutch people bought the argument, and that
is the argument today that is being used, that there is no
connection between marriage and bringing up children. That is
what this is all about. Once marriage stops being about binding
mothers and fathers together for the sake of the children they
create, the need to get married gradually disappears, and today
the Netherlands leads Western Europe in out-of-wedlock
birthrates.
If same-sex marriages or civil unions become the law of the
land, what effect will that have upon our institutions?
For instance, a redefinition of marriage would impact what is
taught in our schools, who can adopt, our health-care system,
Social Security, and the religious liberty of pastors and
churches, not to mention our schools and our private religious
schools.
Children need moms and dads. To say that moms and dads,
male and female, do not matter hurts by teaching to my
children, your children, our children, that their gender, that their
gender does not matter in families, causing harm in their
development. Thousands upon thousands of studies have been
conducted over the years showing that moms and dads are
needed for the bringing up of children.
Faith-based organizations, what will happen if we had
same-sex marriages or civil unions in this country or in this
State? Will churches be forced to perform same-sex marriages?
Will private religious schools be forced to teach something that
they do not agree to? How about faith-based adoption agencies?
We already heard that in Boston, Massachusetts, where
same-sex marriages are legal, the Catholic adoption agencies are
having to shut down because they do not want to be forced, they
do not want to be forced by the State to do things that they do
not agree with, according to their religious conviction.
I think it is important to recognize what the Pennsylvania
marriage protection amendment will do. Number one, it will
define marriage as the union of one man and one woman; it will
make same-sex marriages illegal in Pennsylvania; it will prevent
State legal recognition of counterfeit marriages such as civil
unions; it will prevent the State of Pennsylvania from
recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other States or
foreign countries; it will protect our present marriage law from
court challenge; and also and just as important, it will take the
issue away from judges and from politicians by allowing the
voters in Pennsylvania to define marriage in a statewide
referendum.
Mr. Speaker, the vote on this amendment is a vote on the
marriage amendment. It is essential that we pass this
amendment and pass this bill to protect marriage between one
man and one woman, because it is not just what the parents
want. It is not an adult issue of the wants of an adult. It is also
about the needs of our children.
History has shown, studies have shown the negative impact
if we do not uphold the institution of marriage between one man
and one woman, and I ask for your support for this amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Denlinger.
Mr. DENLINGER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While it does, at some level, amaze me that we are engaged
in a statewide debate over the legal definition of marriage, we
are so engaged today. And why are we having this discussion?
Well, the reason is abundantly clear. Our judicial branch has
become a threat to the sacred, time-honored institutions which
long predate this Assembly the oldest freely elected body on
the North American Continent.
Being unsatisfied with their constitutional role of providing
for the adjudication of criminal and civil matters, the judicial
branch of government has, over time, decided to raise above the
office of Governor in this State and to raise above the legislative
work of this General Assembly. The increasingly activist
judicial branch has decided that they will take it upon
themselves to decide when we, the representatives of the
people, are acting as they wish and when we are not. It is a sad
hour indeed. Judicial tyranny is no less heinous than any other
form of tyranny, and make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker,
your work is considered second rate and your role subordinate
to those on the bench today. What has become a national
concern should be recognized as a Commonwealth concern by
every man and woman duly elected and seated in this House of
Representatives.
Further, I will add that this is not a Democratic or a
Republican problem, and it is not a conservative or liberal
problem. A judicial branch that has, in these times, taken upon
itself the role of final arbiter of that which is best for the people
can strip away our freedoms at will and it can act in ways that
are morally reprehensible as the U.S. Supreme Court did prior
to the Civil War, and will, I repeat, will continue to come down
with agenda-driven decisions that are against the wishes of the
good citizens of our land.
So why are we trying to amend the Constitution of
Pennsylvania? It is, in so many ways, the last defense of the
roughly 12 million people of our Commonwealth. Just a few
years ago, this General Assembly and then Governor Ridge
placed in statute our Defense of Marriage Act. The DOMA was
overwhelmingly supported by the people of the Commonwealth,
and Pennsylvania was one of many, many States to take a
statutory step toward defining marriage as an institution.
Unfortunately, we meet today on this same issue because of the
activist judicial branch that I have just described. Mr. Speaker,
it would take so little, so very little indeed for a judge in this
Commonwealth to set aside the will of the people as expressed
in our Defense of Marriage Act, and we need an ironclad
statement, a statement that is impervious to the whims of the
judiciary. We must step in and protect ourselves from judges
who have lost sight of their proper role and have become the
arrogant usurpers of the will of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I call on all who are here to defend the role of
this House in shaping public policy. The people have spoken on
this matter and did so in 1996. Now is the time to protect what
is perhaps our oldest human institution from the carving knife of
a judiciary that has lost the sight of its proper constitutional role.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage an affirmative vote
on the Boyd amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Frankel.
Mr. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in opposition to the Boyd amendment. I will not go
through the excellent outline of arguments that my colleague
from Montgomery County provided, but I do think there are a
few other points that need to be made today.
The maker of this amendment went to great pains in his
remarks to say that this language would not have any impact on
things like domestic partnership benefits, inheritance rights,
medical decisionmaking, medical visitation. Well, quite frankly,
the evidence is not there to defend that. If that is the case,
I do not understand why he would not have supported the
Nailor amendment. The Nailor amendment was narrowly
defined. I agree, it probably would not have attacked institutions
such as domestic partnership agreements. Nevertheless, we do
have a record, and the record says that language almost identical
to this that has been passed in other States has created litigation
out the whazoo. It has forced governmental and public entities
to withdraw agreements, labor agreements that have been
negotiated, that provide for things like domestic partnership
agreements and health insurance for domestic partners. Let me
just tell you a few of those.
In Michigan, which passed a similar amendment, the
Governor of Michigan removed domestic partnership benefits
from the negotiated package, citing the need for a judicial ruling
on whether the amendment bars public employees from
providing benefits to same-sex partners, and the lawsuit
continues. The Attorney General of Michigan issued a written
opinion indicating that the provision of domestic partnership
benefits to public employees would violate Michigans
antimarriage amendment. In Missouri the president of Columbia
College refused to implement a proposal approved by the
faculty to offer domestic partnership benefits to eligible
employees, and Ohio State legislators suing the University of
Miami, Miami University, arguing that the antimarriage
amendment does not allow for domestic partnership benefits.
Kent State has stopped ongoing negotiations to provide
domestic partnership benefits. We can go on and on, and there
are legislative initiatives in many of these States to do
just that, and quite frankly, based on the history of this
General Assembly, when I go back to my first term in 1999,
this General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to penalize the
State-related and State System universities by removing their
entire appropriation if they dared to incorporate domestic
partnership benefits. So I think this argument is pretty specious.
The fact of the matter is, there is an agenda. The maker may
not own that agenda, but certainly many people who support
this want to attack many of the institutions today that protect
our nontraditional families, and that is far broader than just
same-sex couples. We are talking about elderly people who live
together and decide not to get married in order to preserve
Social Security benefits. They want to have inheritance rights.
They want to have medical visitation. They want to have the
ability to make medical decisions for each other. They are going
to be impacted, and there is no guarantee here that this does not
do it. It is too vague. We do not understand what this language
is. It is going to cause litigation for years to come, if we approve
it.
I am stunned that we are talking about this issue today.
To talk about defining marriage, I mean, clearly we are trying to
replicate what is happening in Washington. I am not sure why
this issue has risen to such a priority in this legislative body
when we need to be dealing with substance. We need to be
talking about minimum wage. We need to be talking about
property tax. We need to be talking about public transportation.
There are lots of issues that rise to a much higher priority than
dealing with defining marriage and taking away peoples rights.
George Bush is doing the same thing in Washington. He
wants to ignore the failed foreign policy. He wants to ignore the
disaster that the recovery in the gulf coast is. He wants to ignore
the increasing deficit. Why? George Bush wants to divert your
attention. My guess is that is why the majority party wants to
proffer this legislation.
Now, the fact of the matter is, the country, this country is
moving steadily and inexorably towards a more open, tolerant
community. Half of all Fortune 500 companies, half of them,
provide domestic partnership benefits. Eleven States provide
domestic partnership benefits. All of the Big Ten, all of the
Ivy League, and all of our State-related universities provide
domestic partnership benefits. The world is moving to recognize
these nontraditional families that are critical to the fabric of our
society, and we are saying in Pennsylvania we are going to shut
the door on them, and I think that message, as my colleague
from Montgomery County quickly noted, sends the wrong
message to the rest of the country. It will stigmatize us as a
State that defines ourselves by being intolerant and promoting
discrimination. That is not the State I want to be a part of; that is
not the State that I think you want to be a part of. Our job, your
jobs as legislators are to protect and defend the Constitution,
not to amend the Constitution to define discrimination on a
law-abiding group of people.
Protect and defend; do not amend. Vote this amendment
down. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I sit here listening to the debate about the
proposed marriage protection amendment, I believe that one of
the key, overwhelming questions we are facing today is the
question of democracy itself, and that is, who should decide
the definition of marriage? To me, the answer is very simple.
I believe the voters should decide the definition of marriage and
not some arrogant judges who wish to arbitrarily overturn the
law. Yes, we are talking about a law that was enacted
overwhelmingly by the elected representatives of the people as
the Defense of Marriage Act 10 years ago. In fact, as was stated
earlier, I am not going to go into all of the details, but I am not
the only one who believes that the voters are the ones who
should ratify the definition of marriage. Statewide polling
shows that the people agree that they and not the courts should
decide the definition of marriage.
Other speakers here today have asked, why do we need a
constitutional amendment now? Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact of
the matter is, this issue is being forced upon us by those who
wish to overturn long-standing laws which protect the
traditional institution of marriage. In fact, a recent article in
USA Today lays out the national game plan, and I want to quote
the headlines from that article. It says, quote, Wave of lawsuits
targets bans on same-sex marriage. That article goes on to say
that there is a national organized effort to overturn defense of
marriage laws in all of the States. All across the country
lawsuits, which are sponsored by special interest groups like the
American Civil Liberties Union, are utilizing carefully selected,
strategic decisions of which States, in which order, and these
groups are arguing that State Constitutions somehow and I do
not know how they come up with this contain a right to
same-sex marriage. They are wrong. We need to clarify that
within our own Constitution.
As you are all well aware, these lawsuits were inspired by
the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court that led to
Massachusetts being the first State to legalize same-sex unions,
but similar lawsuits are awaiting rulings by the top State courts
in Washington and the State of New Jersey. There are also
lawsuits making their way through State courts in California,
Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, and New York. As a matter of
fact, nationwide there are more than 60 lawsuits which would
strike down State marriage laws.
So what I am asking is that we in Pennsylvania must prevent
our State courts from thwarting the will of the people. The only
way that we can protect our time-honored view of marriage is to
embody it in the Pennsylvania State Constitution, and we must
get that constitutional process under way quickly in order to
protect this essential building block for a strong society in the
future. We must empower the voters and not the courts to
determine the definition of marriage now and in the future.
I ask all of you to join me in supporting the marriage
protection amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Rohrer.
Mr. ROHRER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the maker of the
amendment for his effort in bringing this matter before us.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there are any really more
important issues, that we have issues that affect the people of
this State. We know the issue of property tax. We know the
people want that. It affects their wallets. It affects their abilities
to live as families. We know that there are other things that need
to be done, but, Mr. Speaker, there are few things that we would
deal with as fundamental as that surrounding the definition of
marriage and the family.
How many times have we stood on the floor, every member
here, when we talk about education issues, welfare issues, tax
issues it makes no difference we talk about the necessity for
strong families, intact families, families in which children can
be taught and raised. We talk about how to do this, how to
preserve it, and yet it seems, as I listen to some on the floor
tonight, as if that is something that we have forgotten about.
There are some arguments that I have heard here tonight that
would suggest by the opponents of this amendment, that would
suggest that this amendment and those who are in favor of
maintaining the definition of the family as one man and one
woman and children from that union, as if that concept put
forward here today is one of change. We have been asked, the
maker of the amendment was asked all kinds of questions
during interrogation as if he had to justify why a man, a woman,
and children in a marriage is the appropriate thing. I find that
rather interesting. The burden of proof is not on the family as
we have known it to be. The burden of proof is on those who
want that to be changed, and on them I ask, what can you
produce that is better for our children than a man and a woman
united together in marriage? What is better for grandchildren?
What is better for a woman? What is better for a man? We have
what is called an institution of marriage. We are here today
unbelievably in some respects defending that institution of
marriage.
Ben Franklin, look at him standing up here pictured on the
pictures before us. When the republic was handed to our early
founders, he said this: Here is a republic, if you can keep it.
And we have had to defend it, and our frame of government is
under attack, but before our frame of government ever came, it
came the family. Out of that came what we have, and we in this
legislature happen to be here at a time when we are being called
upon to defend that which has always been, that which has been
laid out the best, historic, from ages down to now, and
therefore, we have that option here before us, that which the
amendment is before us seeks not to change what we have
known, but seeks to preserve what we have, to preserve the
family, to preserve the nuclear family, husband and wife and
children, not two men, not one woman and three men, not any
other combination thereof, and tonight because we know that
we do have courts and we have heard that argument that
have chosen to undo, we are forced now to say, how can we
best preserve, and I would say that we as members of this
House are here as caretakers of a legacy that has been provided
to us.
It is not up to us in this House to change that definition.
If that definition is to be changed, it is to be changed by the
people of this State. That is all this does, and I would say that
every one of us here has a responsibility and a duty,
understanding that we are here as representatives of the people,
as folks who will be here for a moment and then will be passed,
to preserve what we have been given in order that we can pass
on to our children and future generations that which is best
regarding the family, and that is one man and one woman as
recognized by this Commonwealth.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I call upon our members to support this
amendment that is the right thing to do and to push this issue
forward for the people of the State to decide this most important
fundamental issue.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Nickol.
Mr. NICKOL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me share eight specific concerns, eight reasons this bill
needs further consideration, eight issues that were never
considered, eight reasons HB 2381 and this amendment should
not be passed. The sponsors may be dismissive of my concerns.
I am not an attorney. But I am not so sure they can be so quickly
dismissive of concerns expressed by some of the very people
who would likely litigate these issues.
The language of HB 2381 was passed around to the various
sections of the Philadelphia Bar Association to get comments.
The reaction, I am told, was almost like the lighting of the
Capitol Christmas tree. Lights went off in each branch or
section of the bar as lawyers read the proposed language and lit
up with serious concerns as to the potential consequences of the
language. This high level of concern resulted in the Philadelphia
Bar Association passing a resolution expressing many of their
specific concerns by unanimous vote.
We need to take the language of this amendment seriously. If
we pass it, we in the General Assembly will largely be handing
off any further say on this language to the courts, and we will
effectively be tying the hands of future legislatures in dealing
with some of these issues. Let me enumerate the concerns.
Number one, adoption and foster placement. Passage of the
proposed amendment could adversely affect the viability of
second parent adoption as well as adoption or foster placement
with unmarried couples, thus depriving needy children of
permanency and financial security.
Proponents of this amendment certainly did not tell us
that this is a possibility, but it was identified as such by the
bar association as a concern. If true, it would directly affect
children, especially children in urban areas that are already short
on foster homes. It could result in many children remaining in
institutional care largely because unmarried opposite-sex
couples could not be foster parents. This is a concern that goes
far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.
Number two, common-law marriage. When the General
Assembly abolished common-law marriage with Act 144 in
2004, we took pains to make sure that no common-law marriage
that took effect prior to January 1, 2005, would be deemed to be
invalid by our action. Passage of the proposed amendment could
prohibit the courts from recognizing the rights of people
married at common law prior to January 1, 2005, to receive
death benefits, pension benefits, health insurance, spousal
support, alimony, or distribution of property.
I do not think any of us want to inadvertently tramp on the
rights and protections of couples who are in otherwise legally
recognized common-law marriages in Pennsylvania today. This
concern expressed by the bar association needs to be
scrutinized. Reread the second part of the amendment and you
will see that it makes no exception for common-law marriages.
This is an issue that goes far beyond the issue of same-sex
marriage, and we need to make sure it does not occur.
Three, public employee benefits. Passage of the proposed
amendment could result in the denial of benefits such as health,
life, and pension to the domestic partners of public employees
in the Commonwealth.
After a review by their solicitor, concern over its implication
to domestic partner benefits has been expressed by unanimous
vote of the Montgomery County Commissioners. They have
been joined in their expression of concern by many public
employee unions: PSEA (Pennsylvania State Education
Association), APSCUF (Association of Pennsylvania State
College and University Faculties), SEIU (Service Employees
International Union), and the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO. All these
unions oppose the legislation as interfering with collective
bargaining.
Will this bill strip health insurance and other benefits from
domestic partners of public employees and children in these
relationships? The problems with this bill go far beyond the
issue of same-sex marriage, and this issue clearly impacts on
opposite-sex domestic partnerships just as well.
Four, private employment benefits. Passage of the proposed
amendment could result in the denial of benefits such as health
and life insurance to the domestic partners of private employees,
private-sector employees, in this Commonwealth, those working
in smaller companies not subject to ERISA (Employment
Retirement Income Security Act).
I have distributed to members of my caucus a letter based on
legal research performed by attorneys from the law firm of
Pepper Hamilton LLP and a concurring opinion expressed by
an attorney from the law firm of Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll, LLP, indicating that the amendment could adversely
impact a private employers ability to offer domestic partner
benefits. I hope they have had a chance to review it. This
same concern was expressed by an employer in my district,
Isaacs Restaurant & Deli, which is based in Lancaster. They
feel that we are interfering with their right to offer the benefits
they want to their employees.
Stripping benefits from domestic partners of private
employers and their children goes far beyond the issue of
same-sex marriage. We need to make certain that this
amendment is not written so broadly that it would have this
consequence.
Five, private contract rights. The bar association also
expressed concern that passage of the proposed amendment
could prohibit the courts from enforcing private contracts
between unmarried domestic partners, should these contracts be
deemed to create rights substantially equivalent to those of
marriage.
I would certainly need to know if this was the case, or not,
before voting on this amendment. It is one thing to pass a
constitutional amendment saying that the State and local
governments cannot grant special rights for unmarried couples.
It is something totally different to go after the legal rights of
such couples to protect themselves by entering into private legal
contracts.
Six, choice of law, other State rights and protections. Passage
of the proposed amendment could result in the denial of medical
decisionmaking and hospital visitation rights to those validly
registered as members of domestic partnerships or civil unions
under the laws of another State. This, too, was a concerned
expressed by the Philadelphia Bar Association.
In addition, the American Law Institute has expressed
concern over conflicts-of-law issues that may arise between
States that legalize civil unions and domestic partnerships and
States that adopt constitutional amendments barring recognition
of such relationships. These conflicts are in two broad areas:
judgment enforcement and choice of law. These concerns go far
beyond the issue of same-sex marriage. It is a matter of simple
human decency.
Can you imagine the turmoil that would be created if other
marriages were not federally protected and they were treated in
the same way we are proposing to treat same-sex relationships
legally recognized in another State? What if your spouse, after a
spat, could simply load everything into a moving van and move
to another State? What if that State was prevented from
recognizing your relationship due to a constitutional amendment
and you could not get the State to enforce a judgment from
Pennsylvania regarding a proper division of assets?
Even more seriously, what about the kids? This nightmare
situation does currently exist for a lesbian couple from Vermont
where one party took the child from the relationship and moved
to Virginia, which does not recognize their civil union
performed in Vermont.
Even if Pennsylvania does not choose to legalize same-sex
marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, we should not
put our heads in the sand to pretend they do not exist elsewhere.
After all, 7 States and the District of Columbia plus 29 foreign
countries legally recognize gay and lesbian relationships, and
we live in a society where people frequently move from State to
State every day.
Seven, domestic violence protections. Let me read from the
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Approximately 20 appellate cases have been filed
challenging Ohios criminal and civil domestic violence
statutes. On March 24, 2006, Ohios Second Appellate District
Court of Appeals opined that Ohios domestic violence statute,
as it relates to persons living as spouses, is unconstitutional in
light of Ohios Defense of Marriage Amendment. This
decision significantly weakens Ohios long-standing
commitment to protecting its citizens against domestic violence.
In light of the strong similarities between Ohio and
Pennsylvania law, this ...decision is instructive in its
application to Pennsylvania law. The dangers posed by
HB 2381 to domestic violence protections in Pennsylvania
cannot be ignored.
Follow it up from the District Attorneys Office in
Philadelphia: I share the concerns expressed by the
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence in their
March 30, 2006 letter regarding the proposed Marriage
Protection Amendment.
This amendment will jeopardize the ability of law
enforcement to protect Pennsylvanias citizens from abuse and
is a gigantic and unwarranted retreat from the protections
afforded our citizens under Pennsylvanias Protection from
Abuse Act.
This goes far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage and
needs much closer examination.
Eight, and final, impact on older individuals living together.
Let me read from a letter from the American Association of
Retired Persons, AARP.
...AARP remains uncertain about how such a Constitutional
Amendment would affect certain segments of Pennsylvanias
population, particularly older individuals living together who
may have chosen to not get married for personal reasons. We
believe that a thorough discussion of this legislation, by way of
a public hearing, could identify issues such as this that may not
be readily apparent in a first reading of the bill. It is important
that these issues, many of which could have an effect on older
Pennsylvanians, be examined to determine whether the current
structure of the legislation reflects the true intent of its
proponents.
The SeniorLAW Center of Pennsylvania: I ask every
legislator supporting this amendment if they recognize the harm
this amendment will have on the elders of their districts? Do
they realize that the rights that thousands of seniors and families
rely on will be affected? This amendment could preclude
recognition of families who are married by common law,
including seniors who have spent their lives together, raised
their children, and built their communities. If this amendment
passes, seniors may lose their pension benefits, their
social security, even their homes. They may lose their right to
inherit. This amendment could eliminate property rights,
financial supports, health coverage, and the right to make
health care decisions about loved ones. It may indeed cause
poverty and even homelessness.
This goes far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.
We need to make sure we are not inadvertently harming
senior citizens living together without the benefit of marriage
because one or both may lose retirement income or health-care
benefits if they remarry.
Supporters of this amendment will, I am sure, soft-pedal
these issues raised not by me, but by the bar association, AARP,
the American Law Institute, and many other groups. If they are
correct on even one or two of these issues, this House should
not be acting in haste to pass the legislation. What do we have
to lose by having a closer examination of these issues?
Supporters of this bill feel we need to pass it today because
they do not trust that the courts of our State will uphold a State
law we passed in 1996 defining marriage as between one man
and one woman. They say that we do not have time to hold any
real hearings on these issues, too. This is despite the fact that
there is no bill that has been introduced in this General
Assembly to change the law defining marriage and no case has
been filed in our State courts to overturn it. I hardly see the
emergency.
I also find it quite ironic that supporters of the amendment
who on one hand do not trust our courts seem to have total faith
and confidence in these very same courts such that they can
assure us today that these same courts will not misconstrue the
rather vague language in the second part of the amendment and
will not be interpreted as they intend.
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the basic law of our State,
the Constitution of Pennsylvania, not a simple statute we can
pass today and come back and change tomorrow. We are
dealing with wording of an amendment that could potentially
cause harm to some of our fellow citizens, not just gays and
lesbians as the sponsors would probably prefer us to think, but
children, senior citizens, and unmarried opposite-sex couples as
well.
I urge defeat of the Boyd amendment and the bill as
presently constituted. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Ross.
Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The debate that we have been hearing tonight really gives us
pause. We have just heard quite a lengthy recitation of potential
legal problems with this constitutional amendment. Other
speakers have raised other serious questions.
Now, if this had been debated thoroughly in front of one of
the committees and all these issues had been raised and sorted
out, I would perhaps feel a little bit more comfortable going
forward with a vote tonight, but in fact, the bill was passed out
of the State Government Committee without a full hearing on it.
There was a limited hearing thereafter, but again, many of the
questions that were being discussed tonight have not been
thoroughly debated.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
Mr. ROSS. This is a very serious step that we are taking.
Substantial litigation could occur if we would take the wrong
measure, so therefore, tonight I would like to make a motion to
recommit this bill to the Judiciary Committee.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman, Mr. Ross, has moved to
recommit HB 2381 to the Committee on Judiciary.
On the question,
gentleman, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that the motion is to
recommit the piece of legislation, the amendment, to a different
committee than the committee in which it was voted out of.
It was voted out of the State Government Committee. And this
bill was introduced on January 24. Gosh, that is going back
almost 5 months ago, and since that time I do not know that
there is any piece of legislation that we have considered that has
had more discussion and more debate among members, among
the community, among one another. I mean, we have been
going through a couple hours worth of debate already here this
evening.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is incredibly important to
the people of Pennsylvania, and clearly this is an issue that is
simply time-sensitive. This is a constitutional amendment. For a
constitutional amendment to get to the ballot, to the people of
Pennsylvania, it has to be done in two successive sessions, and
it has to be done in a time frame where it can be published well
in advance of the election. In effect, Mr. Speaker, we all know
in this room that if this piece of legislation is not passed by the
General Assembly by the end of June, it will be defunct for this
legislative session.
With all due respect to my colleague, this is really a
stall-and-kill tactic. I mean, ultimately if this bill is referred
back to committee, this is over, and that means it is over for
2 years; that means the process cannot start again until the
legislative session in January of 2007, and that will delay any
type of a voter referendum until, I guess the earliest would be
the year 2009.
Mr. Speaker, this issue has been debated. This issue has been
discussed. We had a committee meeting on this issue,
Mr. Speaker. It was a very, very, a very, very strongly debated
committee meeting. There was a lot of dialogue, a lot of
back-and-forth, and ultimately a very close vote in committee.
To suggest that this piece of legislation did not have a full airing
and a full dialogue among the members I just believe is at least
somewhat inaccurate at this point.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the members to, I believe, Mr. Speaker,
if I can, the proper would be to vote against the motion to table.
I want to make sure that we are getting the right vote.
Vote against the motion to table this or recommit this bill back
to the Judiciary Committee.
Clearly, it is a death knell to the Pennsylvania marriage
protection amendment. It is a vote against marriage in
Pennsylvania. It is a vote to stall, delay, and kill the process, and
I urge the coalition that is supporting this, and it supports a
marriage between one man and one woman, to vote against the
motion to recommit to Judiciary.
The gentleman, Mr. Yewcic.
I certainly rise to oppose the motion to recommit. This is not
rocket science. We do not need committee hearings; we do not
need more study. I think everybody in Pennsylvania, everyone
in America understands that this is about marriage between one
man and one woman. There is no reason to delay. This motion
to recommit will be viewed as a vote to kill the marriage
amendment. I want to be clear about that. That is what this will
be viewed as.
So I would ask that we not recommit and let us vote the issue
and put it into the hands of the voters in Pennsylvania on
referendum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Veon.
Mr. VEON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to very strongly support this motion to
recommit. With all due respect to even my good friend on this
side of the aisle from Cambria County, he is right, this is not
rocket science, but this is amending the Constitution of the State
of Pennsylvania, amending the Constitution, and I think the
gentleman from Chester County has made some very
compelling points. This issue does not just affect a narrow
segment of the Pennsylvania population, that we are taking a
very serious and significant step here to amend the Constitution,
potentially, of the State of Pennsylvania.
This was introduced in January. There was one committee
meeting, no public hearings, one committee meeting on an issue
of this serious nature, and I do understand that this issue has
been debated in many ways in the legislature, in our
communities, in our neighborhoods, in our own homes, but an
issue of this magnitude at the very least deserves some
significant public hearings, at the very least, to take a drastic
step to amend the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
It does not mean that the issue is dead for this year. We all
understand that this session goes on till the end of November
and that this can be done correctly, even from the advocates
point of view. It is fair to take a step back, to hold some public
hearings, and if you want to bring this issue up for a vote, you
will have plenty of opportunity to do that.
I strongly encourage a yes vote on the motion to recommit.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Clymer.
Mr. CLYMER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when the bill came into the State Government
Committee, as chairman, we did have a very energized debate
on the bill, and then shortly thereafter, at the wish of the
minority chair, who asked for a public hearing, we did have an
extensive public hearing where both sides could invite people to
come in to discuss the bill. So to say that we did not have a
thorough discussion on the bill is not totally accurate.
And I, too, would ask that we cast a no vote on the motion
to recommit.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Josephs.
While the majority chair of the committee, of which I am the
minority chair, is correct that we had kind of an informational
hearing in the committee, he failed to mention that this
informational-kind-of-a-hearing exercise happened after the
vote was taken in committee, at which point I remarked and
I will remark again, are we in Alice in Wonderland? It seems
so, where the Red Queen, as you remember, called first for the
verdict and then for the trial.
I hope that we can do better than that. I want to see real
hearings, real debate, real discussion. Please vote yes on this
motion to commit to the Judiciary Committee.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Veon, for the
second time.
Mr. VEON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point the gentleman made from
Bucks County, and I also appreciate the point that the
gentlelady from Philadelphia made. I do understand that there
was a public hearing, and I do understand it was after the vote in
committee, but I do think the gentleman from Chester has made
some compelling points about some very fine points of
constitutional law, that we ought to take the time to at least, to
at least give the advocates on both sides of the issue the
opportunity to have a very specific, very detailed, very scholarly
discussion and debate in that State Government Committee.
Even when I have disagreed with the gentleman from Bucks,
we have had opportunities to have serious, significant scholarly
discussions and debates. This issue cries out for that
opportunity.
To amend the Constitution is one of our most important
responsibilities, and we have an opportunity to say to the body
here by passing this motion, let us make sure that we do this the
right way let us have that detailed discussion and debate,
scholarly examination of these fine points of constitutional law
and to do that, we need to pass this motion to recommit the
bill, and I again strongly encourage the members to do so.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Boyd, for the
second time.
Just real, real briefly. I want to clarify something that was
said earlier. Clearly, by constitutional provision, if this is not
done by June 30 we are not back in until September this is
put off until the next session. We have run into this issue before
because it has to be published 90 days prior to the November
election. We ran into that issue on a constitutional amendment
before. So clearly, if we put it off now, it is put off until next
session, I can guarantee you that.
The second thing is, I want to quote one of my colleagues
who probably is not necessarily with me on this issue but makes
a great point. She said, all you need is to have two lawyers in a
room and you will have three opinions. We can discuss this
thing until the cows come home. We can discuss this thing
forever, and ultimately you will have various and sundry
opinions from legal scholars from all over the nation, none of
which will agree and none of which ultimately can truly predict
what will happen.
Ultimately what this is about, a vote for the motion to
recommit is a vote against the marriage protection amendment,
it is a vote against defining marriage, and the first step in
defining marriage is one man and one woman in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and ultimately it is a vote
taking out of the hands of the people the ability to amend their
Constitution.
I strongly encourage a no vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Ross.
Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to begin by clarifying something that I said before just
so that there is no misunderstanding. I have a great deal of
respect for the chair of the State Government Committee and
also for the members of that committee, and I in no way meant
to say that they had failed to give serious consideration to this
piece of legislation, and I know that they did. I know that they
had a spirited debate, and I know that they thought long and
hard before they voted.
However, many of the legal arguments that have come up
have come up more recently. The letters that I have been
receiving and I believe the information coming out of some of
the bar association sources is more recent than their
considerations. And really, I did not choose the Judiciary
Committee idly. These issues are complex. They are naturally
legal issues that would come before the Judiciary Committee,
and I think that the Judiciary Committee is uniquely suited to be
able to consider them.
And finally, the question of delay and the immediacy. We
have no court cases currently pending that challenge the
domestic marriage act; we have nothing that currently is active
here in Pennsylvania, but if we do this wrong, and quite frankly,
those members that are actually in support of this amendment
should also be very worried that we do not do it wrong, because
they will then run the risk of losing what they are attempting.
Now, I think whether you are on either side of this issue, it is
wise to take the time to have some further consideration of it
and to make sure that we properly put to rest the legal issues
that have been brought up here tonight.
So therefore I respectfully request an affirmative vote on my
motion.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. Belfanti.
Mr. BELFANTI. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am rising for a point of parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BELFANTI. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, can the Parliamentarian confirm what the
maker of the amendment is implying that since this legislation
must be adopted by two separate sessions of the General
Assembly and in order for it to be printed to be put and placed
on the ballot, that June deadline only applies to the second
session where this legislation would pass. Why would it apply
also to this session?
The SPEAKER. The concept is that you have to be able to
change the General Assembly in between the two legislative
sessions.
Mr. BELFANTI. I understand that.
The SPEAKER. It does have to have the 90 days notice.
The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BELFANTI. Well, since the question cannot appear on
this Novembers ballot but would rather appear subsequent to
another session, I still fail to see where that date comes into
play.
The SPEAKER. The date comes into play because of the
advertising requirements of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
If you read section 2 of the bill, starting at line 4, Upon the
first passage by the General Assembly of this proposed
constitutional amendment,... that clarifies it.
YEAS88
Bebko-Jones Gannon Miller, R. Santoni
Belardi Gerber Mundy Saylor
Belfanti Gergely Myers Shaner
Bishop Gillespie Nailor Shapiro
Blackwell Good Nickol Siptroth
Blaum Goodman Oliver Smith, B.
Buxton Gruitza ONeill Solobay
Civera Hanna Parker Steil
Cohen James Petrone Stetler
Costa Josephs Pistella Sturla
Crahalla Keller, W. Preston Surra
Cruz Kirkland Ramaley Taylor, J.
Curry Leach Readshaw Thomas
Daley Lederer Rieger Veon
Dermody Levdansky Roebuck Vitali
Diven Mackereth Rooney Walko
Eachus Maher Ross Wansacz
Evans, D. Manderino Rubley Waters
Fabrizio Mann Ruffing Wheatley
Flaherty McGeehan Sabatina Williams
Frankel McIlhinney Sainato Youngblood
Freeman Micozzie Samuelson Yudichak
NAYS109
Adolph Evans, J. Kenney Reichley
Allen Fairchild Killion Roberts
Argall Feese Kotik Rohrer
Armstrong Fichter Leh Scavello
Baker Fleagle Lescovitz Schroder
Baldwin Flick Maitland Semmel
Barrar Forcier Major Smith, S. H.
Bastian Gabig Markosek Sonney
Benninghoff Geist Marsico Staback
Beyer George McCall Stairs
Biancucci Gingrich McIlhattan Stern
Birmelin Godshall McNaughton Stevenson, R.
Boyd Grell Melio Stevenson, T.
Bunt Grucela Metcalfe Tangretti
Caltagirone Haluska Millard Taylor, E. Z.
Cappelli Harhai Miller, S. Tigue
Casorio Harhart Mustio True
Causer Harper Pallone Turzai
Cawley Harris Payne Watson
Clymer Hasay Petrarca Wilt
Corrigan Hennessey Petri Wojnaroski
Creighton Herman Phillips Wright
Dally Hershey Pickett Yewcic
DeLuca Hess Pyle Zug
Denlinger Hickernell Quigley
DeWeese Hutchinson Rapp
DiGirolamo Kauffman Raymond Perzel,
Ellis Keller, M. Reed Speaker
NOT VOTING0

EXCUSED6

Donatucci McGill
Less than the majority having voted in the affirmative, the
question was determined in the negative and the motion was not
agreed to.
The SPEAKER. On the Boyd amendment, the Chair has
before it a list that shows that the gentleman from Philadelphia,
Mr. Roebuck, is next.
Mr. Roebuck.
Mr. ROEBUCK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I had not intended to speak on this particular amendment, but
as I listened to the debate, I became very concerned about what
I hear my fellow Representatives saying about this particular
proposal. I noticed that some of my colleagues talked about
long-term precedents in terms of the need to define marriage,
and somehow, Mr. Speaker, that reminded me about those
Representatives who also spoke about long-term precedents
when it was necessary to defend policies that discriminated
against African-Americans in this Commonwealth and in this
nation. Let us understand, Mr. Speaker, that precedent in and of
itself does not justify injustice. Let us understand, Mr. Speaker,
that if you want to do something that is harmful, it is easy to
justify it in terms of talking about what is versus what is right.
I noticed also, Mr. Speaker, that there was a lot of talk about
courts and about the danger of courts that somehow exceed their
power, but let me tell you that as an African-American citizen
of this nation, I am grateful that we have courts that challenged
laws that were wrong, that legislatures did not challenge, that
legislators justified, that legislators accepted. I am glad we had
courts that challenged those laws and established in this nation a
foundation of equal rights and equality. So if that is wrong,
Mr. Speaker, I defend those courts. I hope we have more of
them. I do not think anyone in this Commonwealth would be
willing to exist under a system like that, and if you are willing
to exist under a system like that, stand up and say it. But the
reality is, Mr. Speaker, we need courts that do what courts are
supposed to do, and that is that they are supposed to defend
individual rights.
Let us understand, Mr. Speaker, that there is talk about the
threat of thwarting the will of the people. Am I to understand,
Mr. Speaker, that when it was the will of the people that
I should be discriminated against, that was all right? When it
was the will of the people that law should be enacted that said
that Blacks were unequal, that was all right? When there were
laws that said it was all right to segregate, that was all right?
That seems to be what we are saying, Mr. Speaker, and that is
fundamentally wrong, and we ought to say it is wrong. We
ought not to go back to those days, Mr. Speaker, because
indeed, if we go back to that, then we ought to be ashamed of
ourselves as elected officials. If we want to go back to patterns
of discriminating against any individual in this Commonwealth,
Mr. Speaker, we ought to be ashamed of that, we ought not to
do it, and anyone who votes to do that ought to think seriously
about what they are doing to this Commonwealth and to this
Constitution.
We are talking about amending the fundamental law of this
State, and if we want to do that, let us do it on a basis that is
based upon equality and fairness, and let us make sure that
whatever we do when we write into the Constitution of our
Commonwealth, we do not do anything that says that one
person is somehow more equal than the other, that is all right,
that in this Commonwealth we can treat people differently and
discriminate against them.
Let us uphold what this Commonwealth is about. It was here
that our nation was founded. Let us not lose sight of the
fundamental and important obligation we have to continue to be
the beacon of democracy and fair play and justice. Let us not
lose sight of our commitment to doing that which is right.
On the Boyd amendment, the Chair sees no one else.
YEAS138
Adolph Feese Killion Reed
Allen Fichter Kotik Reichley
Argall Flaherty Leh Roberts
Armstrong Fleagle Lescovitz Rohrer
Baker Flick Levdansky Ruffing
Baldwin Forcier Mackereth Sainato
Barrar Freeman Maher Saylor
Bastian Gabig Maitland Scavello
Belardi Gannon Major Schroder
Belfanti Geist Markosek Semmel
Benninghoff George Marsico Shaner
Beyer Gergely McCall Siptroth
Biancucci Gillespie McIlhattan Smith, S. H.
Birmelin Gingrich McNaughton Sonney
Boyd Godshall Melio Staback
Bunt Goodman Metcalfe Stairs
Caltagirone Grell Micozzie Stern
Cappelli Grucela Millard Stevenson, R.
Casorio Gruitza Miller, R. Stevenson, T.
Causer Haluska Miller, S. Tangretti
Cawley Hanna Mustio Taylor, E. Z.
Civera Harhai Nailor Tigue
Clymer Harhart Pallone True
Corrigan Harper Payne Turzai
Crahalla Harris Petrarca Wansacz
Creighton Hasay Petri Watson
Daley Hennessey Petrone Wilt
Dally Herman Phillips Wojnaroski
DeLuca Hershey Pickett Wright
Denlinger Hess Pyle Yewcic
DeWeese Hickernell Quigley Yudichak
DiGirolamo Hutchinson Ramaley Zug
Ellis Kauffman Rapp
Evans, J. Keller, M. Raymond Perzel,
Fairchild Kenney Readshaw Speaker
NAYS59
Bebko-Jones Gerber Oliver Solobay
Bishop Good ONeill Steil
Blackwell James Parker Stetler
Blaum Josephs Pistella Sturla
Buxton Keller, W. Preston Surra
Cohen Kirkland Rieger Taylor, J.
Costa Leach Roebuck Thomas
Cruz Lederer Rooney Veon
Curry Manderino Ross Vitali
Dermody Mann Rubley Walko
Diven McGeehan Sabatina Waters
Eachus McIlhinney Samuelson Wheatley
Evans, D. Mundy Santoni Williams
Fabrizio Myers Shapiro Youngblood
Frankel Nickol Smith, B.
NOT VOTING0

EXCUSED6

Donatucci McGill
was determined in the affirmative and the amendment was
agreed to.
On the question,
amended?
Mr. LEACH offered the following amendment No. A07076:
Amend Title, page 1, lines 2 and 3, by striking out BETWEEN
ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 29), page 1, lines 10 and 11; page 2, lines 1
through 3, by striking out all of said lines on said pages and inserting
A civil contract by which any two persons enter into lawful union
to the exclusion of all others shall be valid and recognized in this
Commonwealth as a marriage.
On the question,
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN
gentleman, Mr. Leach. The gentleman indicates he waives off
on 7076.
What about 7134, Mr. Leach? The gentleman waives off on
the amendments.
amended?
Ms. JOSEPHS offered the following amendment No.
A07272:
Amend Title, page 1, lines 2 and 3, by striking out marriage
BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. and inserting
pairing by civil contract.
Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 29), page 1, lines 9 through 11; page 2,
lines 1 through 3, by striking out Marriage. in line 9 and all of
lines 10 and 11, page 1, all of lines 1 through 3, page 2 and inserting
Pairing by civil contract.
A civil contract by which any two adults enter into a pairing to
the exclusion of all others shall be valid and recognized in this
Commonwealth. Such adults and their dependents shall be afforded the
same benefits, protections, rights, privileges and obligations that are
afforded to married persons and their dependents.
On the question,
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN
gentlelady, Ms. Josephs.
Ms. JOSEPHS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be merciful and
waive off on this one.
amended?
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman, Mr. Frankel, wish to
offer amendment 7436? Mr. Frankel? The gentleman waives
off.
What about 7434 and 7435, Mr. Frankel? The gentleman
waives off.
According to the Chair and the Parliamentarian, because of
the Boyd amendment, all other amendments are out of order or
they change the subject matter of the bill.
For what purpose does the gentlelady, Ms. Josephs, rise?
There was a series of amendments that I had filed that were
sequential to the amendment that I just waived off, but they
were rewritten and filed in anticipation of the passage of the
Boyd amendment. So I would appreciate it if you would look at
those amendments and give me a ruling on whether those are
out of order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. We will
take a look.
Amendment 7862 changes the subject matter of the bill,
therefore is out of order.
Amendment 7863 is in order.
For the information of the gentlelady, in order to offer 7863,
there is a necessity for a suspension of the rules. We are looking
at the rest of the amendments right now.
Amendment 7864 changes the subject matter of the bill.
Therefore, it is out of order; the same way with 7865 and 7866.
Does the gentlelady wish to suspend the rules?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Ms. JOSEPHS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentlelady will state it.
On the amendments which you disqualified, I guess is the
word, because it changed the subject matter of the bill, I am
very puzzled. We change the subject matter of bills all the time
on the floor through amendments. We could say that the
amendment that was offered initially that removed many
sentences and left the I do not know the county of the
gentleman. If I can refer to his name, I will. Mr. Nailors
amendment, that could be said to have changed the subject
matter as well, but there was never any objection raised to that
amendment when it was offered.
The amendment of the gentleman from Lancaster that we
just passed, over the objections of myself and others, changed
the word status to union, which one could make an
argument changed the subject matter of the bill.
These are gut-and-replace amendments. We do it all the
time. I really do not understand why I am not allowed to do it
tonight on these amendments.
The SPEAKER. Will the gentlelady please come to the
rostrum.
The House will be in recess for a minute. The gentlelady has
asked for a minute or two to come back with additional
information.
(Conference held at Speakers podium.)
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the lady, Ms. Josephs.
I appreciate your indulgence while I spoke to people about
the amendment that I am allowed to offer.
I am very sorry that I was not allowed to offer my other
amendments. I accept the fact that the Chair has ruled in a
certain way. My question still really remains unanswered. I do
not understand why we cannot change the subject matter of the
bill. We do it all the time, but we can talk about that later.
I am not going to challenge the Chair, as I said, and I am
going to waive off on this amendment as well.
amended?
The SPEAKER. This bill has been considered on three
different days and agreed to and is now on final passage.
The question is, shall the bill pass finally?
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, Ms. Josephs.
I am a short politician. I will attempt to give a short speech.
I think this is a very sad day for this great institution for
which I have great respect and for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, which historically led the way to greater liberties,
greater civil rights, and greater freedoms with responsibility in
this country.
I think it is not only sad from moral and ethical and personal
reasons but from economic reasons as well. Several of the
speakers who oppose this amendment have talked about the pall
that it will place on our State. We will have a name across the
country and across the world as being inhospitable, as being
unconcerned about civil rights, as rushing forward to make
judgment without the proper debate.
I do not know how we can bring business excuse me,
Mr. Speaker. I really would like some attention. I have not
spoken
The SPEAKER. The lady is entitled to be heard. Please keep
the noise levels down.
Ms. JOSEPHS. I have not spoken very much on this bill, and
I
The SPEAKER. The gentlelady is correct. Please keep the
noise down.
Ms. Josephs.
I do not know how we can be expected to compete in a
global economy, to bring businesses here, to bring the best kind
of employees here and employers. We have this kind of
amendment and this kind of image in front of the world.
I am also extremely distraught and distressed that our
Constitution, which led the way for freedom and liberty we
were never like the United States Constitution and enshrined
slavery and enshrined the disenfranchising of women; we never
did those kinds of things and now we are taking a step into a
very murky, a very bad I hope we are not taking this step but
even this debate I think is deleterious, is adverse, has a very
negative impact not only on our image to the world but also in
our own civic pride and our own pride and our history as being
such a forefront of liberty and freedom.
I really do not understand except for the political reasons,
which is to bring out the conservative vote when some people
want the conservative vote out, why there is this rush to do this
damage, this damage to families who are committed and loving,
this damage to children, and this damage to our State and to our
economic development in this Commonwealth.
I am not going to vote for this amendment, that is not a big
surprise. I hope that a majority of my colleagues here, not a
Republican issue, not a Democratic issue, will follow my lead.
I think our constituents admire us when they admire us for
courage and for sticking to our principles, and for those of us
who have principles, I recommend a no vote.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Speaker, different constituents of ours have different
demands upon us. Some people want us to lower taxes, some
people want us to raise taxes to pay for social programs, some
people want us to make sure that they get governmental benefits
of one kind or another, some of us want us to intervene with
governmental agencies on their behalf, and some people really
just want us to leave them alone, and there is a large group of
people out there who are gay, who are living with somebody of
the opposite sex, who really would just like us to leave them
alone and not make moral judgments designed to interfere with
the way they live their lives.
This bill, as has been said before, gets us into the business of
discriminating against people for the first time. As has been said
before, this bill changes a function of the Pennsylvania State
Constitution from dealing with government relations with the
citizens to the relations of citizens with each other.
This is not a constitutional amendment that we are going to
be proud of years from now. This is a constitutional amendment
which is going to cause pain among many, many people. It
obviously will cause pain among gays who want to get married
or gays who want to engage in a civil union, but beyond that, it
will cause many problems for people who are in domestic
partnerships, senior citizens and others who for one reason or
another just want to live together and want to have certain
limited and legal rights. We are enmeshing ourselves in
peoples lives for no real reason. We are making a serious
mistake.
I would urge a no vote.
YEAS136
Adolph Feese Lescovitz Roberts
Allen Fichter Levdansky Rohrer
Argall Flaherty Mackereth Ruffing
Armstrong Fleagle Maher Sainato
Baker Flick Maitland Saylor
Baldwin Forcier Major Scavello
Barrar Gabig Markosek Schroder
Bastian Gannon Marsico Semmel
Belardi Geist McCall Shaner
Belfanti George McIlhattan Siptroth
Benninghoff Gillespie McNaughton Smith, S. H.
Beyer Gingrich Melio Sonney
Biancucci Godshall Metcalfe Staback
Birmelin Goodman Micozzie Stairs
Boyd Grell Millard Stern
Bunt Gruitza Miller, R. Stevenson, R.
Caltagirone Haluska Miller, S. Stevenson, T.
Cappelli Hanna Mustio Surra
Casorio Harhai Nailor Tangretti
Causer Harhart Pallone Taylor, E. Z.
Cawley Harper Payne Taylor, J.
Civera Harris Petrarca Tigue
Clymer Hasay Petri True
Corrigan Hennessey Petrone Turzai
Crahalla Herman Phillips Wansacz
Creighton Hershey Pickett Wilt
Daley Hess Pyle Wojnaroski
Dally Hickernell Quigley Wright
DeLuca Hutchinson Ramaley Yewcic
Denlinger Kauffman Rapp Yudichak
DeWeese Keller, M. Raymond Zug
DiGirolamo Kenney Readshaw
Ellis Killion Reed
Evans, J. Kotik Reichley Perzel,
Fairchild Leh Speaker
NAYS61
Bebko-Jones Gerber Myers Shapiro
Bishop Gergely Nickol Smith, B.
Blackwell Good Oliver Solobay
Blaum Grucela ONeill Steil
Buxton James Parker Stetler
Cohen Josephs Pistella Sturla
Costa Keller, W. Preston Thomas
Cruz Kirkland Rieger Veon
Curry Leach Roebuck Vitali
Dermody Lederer Rooney Walko
Diven Manderino Ross Waters
Eachus Mann Rubley Watson
Evans, D. McGeehan Sabatina Wheatley
Fabrizio McIlhinney Samuelson Williams
Frankel Mundy Santoni Youngblood
Freeman
NOT VOTING0

EXCUSED6

Donatucci McGill
The majority required by the Constitution having voted in
the affirmative, the question was determined in the affirmative
and the bill passed finally.
Ordered, That the clerk present the same to the Senate for
concurrence.
SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR B
RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULE 35
Mr. COHEN called up HR 781, PN 4144, entitled:
A Resolution recognizing June 6, 2006, as National Hunger
Awareness Day in Pennsylvania.
On the question,
Will the House adopt the resolution?
YEAS197
Adolph Fichter Maitland Sabatina
Allen Flaherty Major Sainato
Argall Fleagle Manderino Samuelson
Armstrong Flick Mann Santoni
Baker Forcier Markosek Saylor
Baldwin Frankel Marsico Scavello
Barrar Freeman McCall Schroder
Bastian Gabig McGeehan Semmel
Bebko-Jones Gannon McIlhattan Shaner
Belardi Geist McIlhinney Shapiro
Belfanti George McNaughton Siptroth
Benninghoff Gerber Melio Smith, B.
Beyer Gergely Metcalfe Smith, S. H.
Biancucci Gillespie Micozzie Solobay
Birmelin Gingrich Millard Sonney
Bishop Godshall Miller, R. Staback
Blackwell Good Miller, S. Stairs
Blaum Goodman Mundy Steil
Boyd Grell Mustio Stern
Bunt Grucela Myers Stetler
Buxton Gruitza Nailor Stevenson, R.
Caltagirone Haluska Nickol Stevenson, T.
Cappelli Hanna Oliver Sturla
Casorio Harhai ONeill Surra
Causer Harhart Pallone Tangretti
Cawley Harper Parker Taylor, E. Z.
Civera Harris Payne Taylor, J.
Clymer Hasay Petrarca Thomas
Cohen Hennessey Petri Tigue
Corrigan Herman Petrone True
Costa Hershey Phillips Turzai
Crahalla Hess Pickett Veon
Creighton Hickernell Pistella Vitali
Cruz Hutchinson Preston Walko
Curry James Pyle Wansacz
Daley Josephs Quigley Waters
Dally Kauffman Ramaley Watson
DeLuca Keller, M. Rapp Wheatley
Denlinger Keller, W. Raymond Williams
Dermody Kenney Readshaw Wilt
DeWeese Killion Reed Wojnaroski
DiGirolamo Kirkland Reichley Wright
Diven Kotik Rieger Yewcic
Eachus Leach Roberts Youngblood
Ellis Lederer Roebuck Yudichak
Evans, D. Leh Rohrer Zug
Evans, J. Lescovitz Rooney
Fabrizio Levdansky Ross
Fairchild Mackereth Rubley Perzel,
Feese Maher Ruffing Speaker
NAYS0

NOT VOTING0

EXCUSED6

Donatucci McGill
was determined in the affirmative and the resolution was
adopted.
BILL SIGNED BY SPEAKER
Bill numbered and entitled as follows having been prepared
for presentation to the Governor, and the same being correct, the
title was publicly read as follows:

EXHIBIT PX-52-A


EXHIBIT PX-52-B

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION LAW

REP. ALLAN EGOLF, : No. 2004-03160-28-5
REP. GIBSON C. ARMSTRONG, :
REP. MATTHEW E. BAKER, :
REP. THOMAS C. CREIGHTON, :
REP. GORDON DENLINGER, :
REP. STEPHEN R. MAITLAND, :
REP. DARYL METCALFE, :
REP. MERLE H. PHILLIPS, :
REP. SAMUEL E. ROHRER, :
REP. JERRY A. STERN, :
REP. KATIE TRUE, :
REP. THOMAS F. YEWCIC, and :
CREATIVE PULTRUSIONS, INC. :
:
vs. :
:
ROBERT SENECA and :
STEPHEN STAHL :

ORDER AND OPINION

This case comes before the Court through Defendants' Preliminary Objections to
Plaintiffs Declaratory J udgment action wherein Plaintiffs have asked this Court to
declare Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1704 and Pennsylvania's
Marriage Law, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1102 constitutional. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs'
Complaint should be stricken because Plaintiffs lack standing and due to Plaintiffs failure
to state a claim that is ripe for adjudication.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2004, Defendants, Robert Seneca and Stephen Stahl, appeared
before the Bucks County Register of Wills to obtain a marriage license. According to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants were "refused an application because they are two men,
rather than one man and one woman" (Plaintiff's Complaint, 12-13). To date,
1
Defendants have not taken any further action regarding their marriage application nor
have they challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's Marriage Laws in any court
(Plaintiff's Complaint, 12-13).
On May 14, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Declaratory J udgment Action requesting that
we declare the above referenced statutes constitutional. Plaintiffs are twelve (12) State
Representatives who sponsored, voted for or who support Pennsylvania's Defense
of Marriage Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 1704 and Pennsylvania's Marriage Law, 23 Pa.C.S.A.
1102. Creative Pultrusions, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is also a named Plaintiff
(Plaintiffs' Complaint, 1-3, 7).
The State Representatives allege they have standing to bring this action because
they are either Legislators who voted for 1704 and 1102 or who currently support the
legislation and have an interest in seeing that the will of the legislature be upheld
(Plaintiffs' Complaint, 9). Creative Pultrusions asserts standing because, as a business,
its employee benefits packages that cover spouses would be greatly expanded if a new
class of individuals were permitted to marry. Creative Pultrusions also asserts standing
on the basis that as a taxpayer it would be affected by additional state spending providing
benefits to a new class of married individuals (Plaintiffs' Complaint, 10).
On J une 17, 2004, Defendants filed the preliminary objections to the Complaint
wherein they moved for the dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint because:
The Complaint fails to state a claim under the Declaratory J udgment Act, 42
Pa.C.S.A. 7531-41;

The Complaint seeks an impermissible advisory opinion from the Court;
The Complaint fails to state a claim that is ripe for adjudication, is
justiciable and does not present an actual case or controversy; and

2
Plaintiffs lack standing.
(Defendants' Preliminary Objections, 4).
Thus, the essence of the issues before this Court are whether Plaintiffs have
standing to bring this action and whether Plaintiffs have asserted a claim that is ripe for
adjudication. The issue of the constitutionality of Pennsylvanias Defense of Marriage
Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1704 and Pennsylvanias Marriage Law, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1102 is not
currently before the Court.

DISCUSSION
It is not often that controlling Supreme Court precedent is directly on point to a
case under consideration. As it relates to the issues before this Court, Township of
Whitehall v. Oswald, 161 A.2d 348 (Pa. 1960) is that precedent. In Township of
Whitehall the Plaintiff Township sought Declaratory J udgment regarding an ordinance
prohibiting occupation in any trailer outside a duly permitted trailer park. After passage
of the ordinance, two land owners purchased and occupied trailers in the township,
outside of a duly permitted trailer park. Without attempting to enforce the ordinance
against the trailer owners, the Township filed a Declaratory J udgment action seeking to
have the ordinance declared constitutional. The Trial Court agreed to consider the
request and found the ordinance constitutional. Township of Whitehall, 161 A.2d at 349-
350.
In reversing the Trial Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a
municipality does not have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes
of having the constitutionality of an ordinance adjudicated in a Declaratory J udgment
proceeding. In refusing to grant the Declaratory J udgment and in finding that Plaintiffs
3
had no standing to bring the action, the Supreme Court frowned upon the concept of a
legislative body seeking a judicial pronouncement on the constitutionality of its own
statute. The Court found that process to be unorthodox, extraordinary, and
irresponsible. The Court further stated that:
To construe the Uniform Declaratory J udgments Act, 12 P.S. 831 et seq.,
as granting such a right to a governmental body would be to encourage
legislative irresponsibility and to constitute the courts the legal advisers of
municipalities with respect to their legislative enactments. If a question
concerning the constitutionality of an ordinance is to be passed upon by a
court, it can be done properly only as the sequence of an actual
controversy based upon a sufficient allegation by a complainant that he is
being harmed or threatened with imminent harm in violation of his
constitutionally protected rights.

Township of Whitehall, 161 A.2d at 349.

Identical to the municipality in Township of Whitehall, the Plaintiff Legislators in
the case before us have requested an advisory opinion on their own legislative enactment.
Like the Court in Township of Whitehall, we find this request to be extraordinary, and
respectfully decline to act as the legal adviser of the Legislative Branch.
Plaintiffs have also offered no explanation as to why Township of Whitehall does
not mandate dismissal of their action except to argue that as Legislators they have an
interest to see that their will be upheld. Simply being part of a legislative body that
passes laws does not grant members of that legislature standing to file a Declaratory
J udgment Action on the constitutionality of that law. Township of Whitehall, 161 A.2d
at 349.
Nor are we persuaded by the precedent cited by Plaintiffs, which they assert
provides a legal basis for their standing to maintain this action. In each of these cases, in
which the legislators were found to have standing, the cause of action pertained to
4
procedural infringements on the legislators legislative functions. See Zemprelli v.
Daniels, 436 A.2d 1165 (Pa. 1981) and Ritter v. Commonwealth, 548 A.2d 1317 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1988), affirmed, 557 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1989). Here, however, the Plaintiffs are
not challenging infringements on their own legislative functions, but are claiming that
they have standing because they sponsored, voted for, or support Pennsylvania Marriage
Laws.
Plaintiff Creative Pultrusions, Inc. claims it has standing because if the Marriage
Laws in question are declared unconstitutional, its employee benefits package will be
affected because it will have to pay more for same-sex partners (Plaintiffs' Complaint,
10). We cannot envision a more speculative pleading. This pecuniary interest argument
fails because Creative Pultrusions, Inc. has not precisely explained how it will be affected
and has not even alleged that any of its employees would attempt to receive such benefits.
More to the point, the harm alleged by Creative Pultrusions has not yet occurred.
Nor do the facts alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint state a claim that is ripe for
adjudication. Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint and argued before this Court that they
will be harmed because Defendants challenge to the marriage statutes in question are
imminent (Plaintiffs Complaint, 6). Plaintiffs base this assertion on the fact that:
1) Defendants sought a marriage license; and 2) Defendants announced to the press that
they intended to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvanias Defense of Marriage
Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1704 and Pennsylvanias Marriage Law, 23 Pa. C.S.A. 1102. These
facts are woefully inadequate to establish that any harm to Plaintiffs is imminent. See,
Silo v. Ridge, 728 A.2d 394, 398 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (A declaratory judgment is not
appropriate to determine rights in anticipation of events which may never occur but is
5
appropriate where there is imminent and inevitable litigation.); Boyle v. Commonwealth,
617 A.2d 70, 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (Declaratory relief is not available unless an actual
controversy exists or is imminent or inevitable.)
Imminent means threatening to occur immediately. Websters New
International Dictionary 1245 (2
nd
Ed. 1938). Whatever the Defendants intentions are,
their statements to the press, without more, do not, for purposes of deciding whether a
controversy is ripe, qualify as imminent. To hold otherwise would set untenable
precedent that posturing before the media equates to inevitable litigation.
Defendants have not taken any legal action regarding their marriage application,
let alone brought an actual challenge to the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's Marriage
Laws in any court. If and when that occurs this Court may have the opportunity to
examine the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A.
1704 and Pennsylvania's Marriage Law, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 1102. At this point in time
however, Plaintiffs request that we do so is simply not ripe for consideration.

CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiffs lack standing and there is no actual controversy, Defendants
Preliminary Objections are hereby sustained and Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed. Our
Order follows.
BY THE COURT:

_________________ _____________________________
DATE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.

6

Copies to:

Peter S. Greenberg, Esquire
SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP
1600 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286

Cynthia J. Schneider, Esquire
Leonore F. Carpenter, Esquire
CENTER FOR LESBIAN AND GAY CIVIL RIGHTS

Leonard G. Brown, III, Esquire
Randall L. Wenger, Esquire
CLYMER & MUSSER, P.C.
23 N. Lime Street
Lancaster, PA 17602

Malia Brink, Esquire
ACLU Foundation of Pennsylvania
P.O. Box 1161

David S. Cohen, Esquire
Lauren L. Sorrentino, Esquire
WOMENS LAW PROJECT
125 South Ninth Street, Suite 300

Susan Frietsche, Esquire
WOMENS LAW PROJECT
Western Pennsylvania Office
345 Fourth Avenue, Suite 904

7

EXHIBIT PX-53

To Boyd, marriage 'completes you' -- unless you're gay
Jeff Hawkes - Intelligencer Journal Staff | Posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:27 am
I told him I took issue with his advocacy of an amendment to Pennsylvania's constitution that would ban same-
sex marriages, and he still agreed to an interview.
Boyd is a personable and high-spirited Republican who ably represents a slice of small-town Lancaster County,
and we engaged in a lively give-and-take in his district office in Lampeter.
After an hour, when we decided to let the dust settle, Boyd hadn't budged from his position. Nor had I.
Still, it was time well spent because I came to see more clearly how irrational fears and blindered reasoning can
lead one to oppose same-sex marriage.
If Boyd had argued he's against same-sex marriage because the Bible -- or at least his minister -- condemns
homosexuality, I'd be the last person to question his belief. The Bible has varied interpretations; I'm no
theologian.
But Boyd didn't play the "God card," not overtly, at least. He's a public official after all, and America is not a
theocracy. Boyd appropriately advanced secular reasons for wanting to preclude the possibility of the judiciary
redefining marriage as something other than a contract between a man and a woman.
At the heart of Boyd's objection to same-sex marriage is an inclination to stereotype gender in a way that verges
on sexism, not that Boyd would see it that way.
To Boyd, gender is a vital matter -- that is, he sees each person as distinctly male or female, as "different beings
at the core."
"Biologically, we're different. Emotionally, we're generally different people," Boyd said of men and women.
Therefore, to be whole, he said, a man needs a woman, and vice versa.
"I believe," he said, "there is no more self-evident truth than that we were created male and female, that we're
fundamentally different and that we are created to have a union together that brings about a completeness."
For Boyd, there's a line in the Tom Cruise movie "Jerry McGuire" that says it all. Cruise's character tells his
(female) love interest: "You complete me."
Why is that relevant? Promoting male-female relationships is crucial for the good of society, Boyd contends,
because women "exercise a softening and almost a civilizing of men."
Boyd no doubt thinks a woman needs a man for completeness, too, but he didn't address the female perspective.
Looking at genetics, Boyd is correct, of course, that men and women are different. Unfortunately, he downplays
something else that's self-evident: a human being is more than the impetus of his or her genes. Genitals don't
define one's makeup.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 http://lancasteronline.com/opinion/to-boyd-marriage-completes-you----unless-you/article_1...
Masculinity and femininity are concepts along a continuum. Behaviorally, emotionally, temperamentally, men
and women are all over the chart, and the fact that a person is biologically male or female is not a predictor of
where that individual falls on the continuum.
If one considers behavior, mannerisms and mind-set, to offer but one example, one wonders who was the more
masculine: Gandhi or Margaret Thatcher?
In Boyd's mind, what would happen if society no longer "protected" marriage as solely an aspiration for a man
and a woman? Well, he says it would go against time-honored tradition (wasn't slavery a time-honored
tradition?) and propel society down the slippery slope to ruin.
Look at what's already happening, Boyd said. A teacher in Massachusetts showed eighth-graders "graphs and
charts" detailing homosexual sex, a Canadian minister was arrested for preaching against homosexuality, and
HBO's newest series explores polygamy.
Just to make sure I didn't miss his point, Boyd asked, "Would you say it's wrong to marry an animal?"
Goodness. The lawmaker doth protest too much, methinks, though Sen. Rick Santorum might disagree.
On arguments like those, Boyd builds a case for enshrining discrimination in the state constitution.
Boyd assured me he values gays and lesbians. I wonder. In saying they shouldn't marry, Boyd exhibits an
insensitivity to differences in people and an impoverished appreciation of human potential.
E-mail Jeff at . jhawkes@lnpnews.com
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 http://lancasteronline.com/opinion/to-boyd-marriage-completes-you----unless-you/article_1...

EXHIBIT PX-54

PEBTF BENEFIT NEWSfor Active Members
www. pebt f. org SPRI NG 2009
PEBTF Introduces Domestic
Partner Benefits
To respond to current cultural
changes, last fall the Trustees of the
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund (PEBTF) voted to allow common-
wealth employees to extend their benefit
coverage to certified domestic partners,
effective July 1, 2009. Benefits include:
n Medical (HMO and PPO Only)
n Prescription Drug
n Dental
n Vision
n Hearing Aid
Many employers allow employees to
extend benefits to cover domestic part-
ners. A majority of Fortune 500 compa-
nies, including Chevron, Coca-Cola,
Eastman Kodak, Google, Home Depot,
AT&T Inc., Nike and The Walt Disney
Co., extend such benefits. A dozen sig-
nificant Pennsylvania companies do so.
Among them are Aramark, CIGNA,
Comcast, Erie Insurance, Lincoln
National, Mellon Financial, PNC
Financial Group, Unisys and Rite Aid.
And, with this program, Pennsylvania
joins 15 states Alaska, Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa,
Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont and Washington in
allowing employees to extend health
benefits to domestic partners.
To Apply
An employee may certify that another
person is their domestic partner if they
provide at least three of the following
items:
n Domestic partnership agreement as
recognized by a governmental entity
n Deed or lease evidencing common
ownership of real property or a com-
mon leasehold interest in property
n Evidence of joint title to a motor
vehicle
Whats Inside
Domestic Partner Benefits .....................1
Women's Health and Cancer
Rights Act of 1998 ..............................2
Your Benefit Questions Answered .........3
Benefit Clarification PPO Option ........3
Get Healthy............................................4
Getting Fit, Staying Fit ...........................5
HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices .........6
Understanding Consumer Driven
Health Care ........................................6
A Case of Mistaken Identity ..................7
Pediatric Immunizations .......................7
Medical Tip for Spring Allergies ............8
n Drivers license listing a common
address
n Proof of joint bank accounts or credit
accounts
n Proof of designation as a beneficiary
for life insurance or retirement bene-
fits or beneficiary designation under
a partners will
n Assignment of durable power of
attorney
To apply for domestic partner bene-
fits, employees should contact their
human resource office and complete:
n Employee Enrollment/Change Form
(PEBTF-2)
n PEBTF Domestic Partnership
Verification Statement and
Application for Health Benefits Form
(PEBTF-12)
Please note that the CDHP will not
be available for domestic partnerships
because the tax laws governing the
associated Health Reimbursement
Account will not permit its use in the
majority of cases.
Employees may apply for coverage
beginning May 1 for an effective date of
July 1, 2009. HR offices will not have
the necessary forms prior to May 1,
2009.
Common
Requirements
to Qualify as a
Domestic Partner
n Two adults, at least 18 years of
age, and engaged in an exclusive
committed relationship
n Financial interdependence
n Mentally competent to enter into
a contract in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania
n Sole domestic partner of each
other
n Lived together in the same resi-
dence on a continuous basis for
at least six months, with the
intent to reside together perma-
nently
n Not related
n Do not maintain the relationship
solely for the purpose of obtain-
ing employment-related benefits
n Neither person is married to or
legally separated from any indi-
vidual
Continued on Page 2
On October 21, 1998, Congress enacted the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of
1998. The PEBTF health plans already complied with this important legislation that covers:
n Reconstruction of the breast on which the mastectomy was performed
n Surgery and reconstruction of the other breast to produce a symmetrical appearance
n Prostheses and treatment of physical complications at all stages of the mastectomy, includ-
ing lymphedemas
Coverage will be provided in a manner determined in consultation with the attending phy-
sician and the patient. Coverage may be subject to deductibles and coinsurance, as specified
in your specific plan option.
2 www. pebt f. org
Union Trustees
David Fillman, Chairman
AFSCME Council 13
Neal Bisno
SEIU Healthcare PA
Richard Caponi
AFSCME District Council 84
Michael Fox
Kathy Jellison
Local 668 SEIU
Marc Kornfeld
PSEA
Percy Poindexter
PSCOA
Dominic Sgro
Wendell Young, IV
United Food &
Commercial Workers
Commonwealth
Trustees
Naomi Wyatt, Secretary
Office of Administration
Charlene Couch
Bureau of Equal Employment
Opportunity
David Donley
Office of the Budget
Jay Gasdaska
Bureau of Labor Relations
William Grab
Office of Administration
James Honchar
Human Resources & Management
Mary Soderberg
Ann Spishock
Matt Waneck
Employee Benefits and Services
PEBTF BOARD
OF TRUSTEES
PEBTF Introduces Domestic Partner Benefits Continued from Page 1
Dependent Children
Coverage for domestic partners dependent children also is available. Children must reside
in the household of the employee and domestic partner and documentation is required. Your
local human resource office or the PEBTF can answer questions about covering these depen-
dents.
Tax Implications
Health benefits provided to domestic partners are considered taxable income under federal
and state laws. Additional information on the tax implications will be provided at enrollment
and is posted on PEBTFs Web site.
Retirement
Employees who qualify for the Retired Employees Health Program (REHP) may continue
coverage for domestic partners and dependents upon retirement. REHP benefits include
medical and prescription drug only.
Termination of Domestic Partner Coverage
If a partnership ends, the employee must notify their local human resource office within
60 days and must complete:
n Employee Enrollment/Change Form (PEBTF-2)
n Individual Domestic Partnership Termination Statement Form (PEBTF-13)
At that time, a HIPAA notice and COBRA continuation of coverage notification will be
mailed to the former domestic partner so that they may elect COBRA coverage if needed.
Employees are responsible for reporting changes in a timely manner and are responsible for
any claims incurred when dependents are not eligible for such benefits.
Additional information about domestic partner coverage may be found on the PEBTF Web
site under News.
Update your Personal Information
Address and telephone number changes should be updated through ESS. If
you do not have consistent access to ESS, please notify your Human Resource
Office. Also, notify your local HR Office if you get divorced or you have a
dependent who is no longer eligible.
Annual Notification
Important Information About Women's
Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998
SPRI NG 2009 3
We have received inquiries about a recent article that appeared on page 2 of the Winter 2009
PEBTF Benefit News for Active Members that clarified that the PPO does not provide benefits for
services received by Members from a "non-contracted provider." This clarification reflects the Plan
operation in accordance with standard Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPO practices.
The PPO divides providers into three categories:
Category 1 In Network: If you receive services from a provider who has entered into a contrac-
tual relationship to participate in the PPO network with Capital Blue Cross or another Blue Cross/
Blue Shield entity participating in the Blue Card Program, the Plan will pay benefits at the in-
network level.
Category 2 Non-Network: If you receive services from a provider that does not participate in
the PPO network, but has another contractual arrangement relevant to reimbursement for those
services with Capital Blue Cross or another Blue Card entity, you will be reimbursed at the lower
non-network rate.
Category 3 No Contract with a Blue Card Entity: In relatively uncommon circumstances, you may receive services from a
provider who has no relevant contractual reimbursement arrangement at all with any Blue Card entity. In that case, the Plan does
not provide for any reimbursement.
Information on the Blue Card Program appears in the PPO section of the Summary Plan Description. If you have any questions
about a provider's status for reimbursement purposes, please contact Capital Blue Cross/Blue Shield or the PEBTF.
PPO Option Clarification to the Winter Newsletter
Your Benefit Questions Answered
Do you have a question about your PEBTF benefits that you would like to appear in the newsletter?
Submit your question to Communications@pebtf.org, mail it to Communications, PEBTF, 150 S. 43rd Street, Harrisburg, PA
17111-5700 or fax it to Communications, 717-561-1696. Please include your full name, address, agency and daytime phone
number. Only your first name will appear in print. If the PEBTF publishes your question in a future newsletter or in the FAQ
section of the PEBTF Web site, you will receive a pedometer to help you walk your way to better health.
I am having knee replacement surgery in a month. I will be able to go home after a few days but
will need Home Health Care for a couple of weeks since I will be essentially homebound. What is
the benefit for Home Health Care?
Eileen
Coverage is provided for medically-necessary Home Health Care services that relate to the improvement of a medical con-
dition. Services may include professional services of appropriately licensed and certified individuals, physical, occupational,
speech or respiration therapy, laboratory services and antibiotic intravenous drug treatments, just to name a few.
Home Health Care is covered under all of the PEBTF health plan options, as follows:
PPO Option: Covered 100 percent in network; no day limit for in-network care. Home Health Care must be preauthorized.
Out-of-network it is covered at 70 percent after the deductible, and you may be balance billed for the difference between
the plan allowance and actual charge.
HMO Option: Covered 100 percent in network, up to 60 medically-necessary visits in a 90-day period. The benefit is renew-
able when 90 days without Home Health Care have elapsed. There is no out-of-network benefit under the HMO.
CDHP Option: Covered 100 percent in network; no day limit for in-network care. Home Health Care must be preauthorized.
Out-of-network it is covered at 70 percent after the deductible, and you may be balance billed for the difference between
the plan allowance and actual charge
4 www. pebt f. org
gross base salary (refer to your Collective Bargaining
Agreement).
Members Not Currently Earning the Health Care
Contribution Waiver: If you and your covered spouse
completed the 2009 Health Assessment, you will save of
your employee contribution or 1 percent of your gross base
salary contribution beginning July 1, 2009. Based on an
average salary of $46,000, an employee would see savings of
$460 a year.
Members Currently Earning the Health Care
Contribution Waiver: You and your covered spouse had to
complete the 2009 Health Assessment. In addition, At Risk
and Chronic profile members were required to complete the
appropriate Get Healthy Program by March 31, 2009. If
both these requirements were satisfied, you will continue to
earn the health care contribution waiver and will save of
your employee contribution or 1 percent of your gross base
salary beginning July 1, 2009.
Next Steps
In July, you will receive a Get Healthy letter notifying you
of your successful completion of the program requirements.
In August, you and your covered spouse will receive a let-
ter notifying you of your health status Healthy, At Risk or
Chronic. The letter details the program participation require-
ments to earn future health care contribution waivers.
By now, you and your covered spouse should have
completed a Health Assessment. The 2009 annual Health
Assessment period ended on April 21. Completion of an
annual Health Assessment is a requirement to earn the
health care contribution waiver.
After you completed your online Health Assessment,
you immediately received your Health Assessment
Results. A graph showing your Wellness Score appeared
in the middle of the page. Your report included recommen-
dations on improving your health, and is a great way to get
you started on making healthy choices. It also serves as
confirmation that you have completed the Health
Assessment.
Health Assessment Results
If you did not print your report after taking your
Health Assessment, you may access it at any time with-
in the next six months. You may link to the Health A to
Z Web site from the PEBTF Web site, www.pebtf.org.
Click on Get Healthy and then the Health A to Z Web
site, which appears next to the Healthy Profile. Select
Review Health Assessment Results, which is found in
the middle of the page.
Get Healthy Program Participation Saves You Money
Your employee contribution for health care is calculated
as a percentage of your biweekly gross base salary. On July
1, 2009, your contribution increases to 2 percent of your
Completion
of Annual
Health
Assessment
Completion of Appropriate
Get Healthy Program
for Members Categorized
as At Risk or Chronic
(Healthy Members are not Required
to Participate in a Program)
Earned
Health Care
Contribution Waiver
(1 percent waiver for fiscal
year beginning July 1)
+
=
GET
HEALTHY
SPRI NG 2009 5
Exercise can help you feel better, look better and maybe
even live longer. But, sometimes its hard to get started.
Getting fit doesnt have to mean spending hours at the gym
or running laps until you drop. Even if you only can fit in 10
minutes here and 15 minutes there, every little bit counts.
Benefits of Physical Activity
n Can help keep weight under control
n May help improve blood cholesterol levels
n May help prevent or control high blood pressure
n May help prevent bone loss
n Increases muscle tone
n Boosts energy levels
n May help manage stress and relieve tension
Getting Fit, Staying Fit
Getting Started
n Talk with your doctor before beginning any exercise pro-
gram.
n Start slowly. Dont overdo it.
n Stay well hydrated.
n Ask a friend to exercise with you. It can help keep you
motivated.
n Try to make exercise a part of your daily routine.
If you do something fun and interesting, youre more like-
ly to stay with it. To help get you going, here are some exam-
ples of exercises and how many calories they burn. This table
shows the number of calories a 150-pound person burns
doing these activities for 20 minutes.
Activity Calories Burned
Bicycling (6 mph) 240
Swimming laps 240
Running (5.2 mph) 216
Playing basketball 192
Doing step aerobics 168
Hiking 144
Dancing 132
Playing golf (carrying clubs) 132
Painting the house 120
Washing the car 108
Walking (4.0 mph) 104
Gardening 98
Stretching, doing hatha yoga 96
Playing golf (using a cart) 84
Bowling 72
Call Optum
at 1-877-950-5008 (TDD/TTY callers,

please call 1-800-855-2880) for more fitness tips.
And, get answers to any other health questions.
Registered nurses are available 24 hours every day.
6 www. pebt f. org
Understanding Consumer Driven
Health Care
The PEBTF added the
UnitedHealthcare CDHP as
a plan option in 2006. Since
that time, more and more
PEBTF members have
enrolled in this option. The
CDHP allows you to make
health care choices that best
fit your needs.
UnitedHealthcare provides
the combination of health
care coverage, financial tools
and information that come
together in a unique way to
help you stay healthy and
use health care services
more efficiently.
Health insurance is much more than
just coverage for when you are ill or
injured. It is a commitment to you and
your family that the UnitedHealthcare
CDHP will continue to seek ways to help
you live a better life through better health.
UnitedHealthcare, a leader in consumer-
driven health plans, has helped millions of
people become better health care consum-
ers by giving them more control over their
health and health care dollar.
Most people dont really know the true
cost of health care services. As health care
costs continue to rise, it is more important
for consumers, like yourself, to have more
choice and control over how your hard-
earned money is spent.
When you need your car serviced or
repaired, you want a good mechanic or
repair shop at the most affordable price.
You might call around and compare you
might even ask a friend. This is all part of
being a good consumer.
Why should it be any different when it
comes to health care for you and your
family?
With a consumer-driven health plan, you
will want to pay close attention to the actu-
al cost of doctor visits and services.
With UnitedHealthcare, members may
see savings* because of:
n Fewer visits to the emergency room for
non-emergency care
n Fewer visits to the doctors office for
minor health needs
n Increased awareness of actual costs for
doctor visits and other care
n 100 percent coverage for preventive
care services (PEBTF members have up
to $500 maximum for single
members/$1,000 for family per year)
n Access to health education resources
online or by telephone
UnitedHealthcare offers online tools and
support to help improve your health and
get the best value from your coverage.
Members may visit, www.myuhc.com.
* Based on a UnitedHealthcare Group Three Year Study of
Consumer Driven Health Plans, 2003 2005
Medicare Eligibility
If you or a covered
spouse or dependent
are under 65 and
enrolled in Medicare,
contact the PEBTF with
this important informa-
tion. Do not neglect to
provide this information.
If you do not provide
this information, you
and your eligible
dependents will lose
your medical benefits.
HIPAA Notice of
Privacy Practices
The HIPAA Notice of
Privacy Practices was
mailed to members in
2003 and continues to be
mailed to members newly
enrolled for PEBTF benefits.
The Notice of Privacy
Practices lists your rights
under HIPAA and it
applies to records main-
tained by the PEBTF
regardless of the source
of the information. The
notice tells you about the
ways in which the PEBTF
may use and disclose
your Protected Health
Information (PHI). It also
describes your rights and
certain obligations the
PEBTF has regarding the
use and disclosure of PHI.
To download a copy of
the HIPAA Notice of
Privacy Practices, go to
www.pebtf.org. You will
find it under Resources,
then HIPAA.
SPRI NG 2009 7
Jennifer arrived home after a two-
week vacation touring New England.
Three weeks after she returned from her
vacation, she was opening her mail and
found an Explanation of Benefits from
her health insurer for services incurred
in a hospital in western Pennsylvania on
a day that she was in Boston.
Jennifer had been a victim of a crime
she had never heard of medical identi-
fy theft. Luckily, she looked at her
Explanation of Benefits and knew she
hadnt received any medical care at that
hospital on that date. She remembered
she was at a Red Sox game that day.
She immediately called her insurance
company and they conducted an investi-
gation and removed the charges from
her records.
Even though her insurance company
corrected the charges, medical identity
theft can have far-reaching consequenc-
es. It can max out any benefit limits you
may have, you can spend years untan-
gling paper trails and your medical
records can be permanently altered.
Unlike credit card theft, this type of
identify theft can be life threatening.
Imagine what could happen if someone
elses medical history was added to your
records: You could arrive at the ER and
be given the wrong type of blood or be
refused medication because your records
show you are allergic.
Steps to Protect Yourself From Fraud
n Review your health insurance statements
for medical service you did not receive.
Always look at the statements you receive
from your health insurance company and
carefully look at all charges
n Beware of offers for free medical services;
never provide your personal information
n Remember your insurance card is as valu-
able as a credit card; keep it close at hand
and call your insurer or the PEBTF imme-
diately if it is missing
How to Clear Your Name
n Contact the PEBTF fraud hotline at
1-866-217-4141 or via email fraud@
pebtf.org, or the fraud investigation unit
of your health insurance company if you
see any suspicious charges on your insur-
ance statements
n Call the Federal Trade Commission
hotline at 877-ID-THEFT to report the
crime and get advice on repairing your
record
n Act quickly to control damage
Source: Self, March 2008
A Case of Mistaken Identity
The PEBTF previously covered individual pediatric vaccines.
Currently, these combination vaccines are available. Your doctor
has the choice of administering the single vaccines or may recom-
mend these new combination vaccines:
Pentacel combines DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and
pertussis), IPV and Hib vaccines into a single injection. This
vaccine is recommended for children between the ages of 6
weeks to 4 years.
Kinrix combines the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertus-
sis) and IPV (polio) vaccines. This vaccine is recommended
for children between the ages of 4 to 6 years.
Pediatric Immunizations
Presorted Standard
U.S. Postage
PAID
Kennedy Printing Co.
Pennsylvania Employees
Benefit Trust Fund
150 South 43rd St., Suite 1
Harrisburg, PA 17111-5700
asd
Local: 717-561-4750
Toll Free: 800-522-7279
PEBTF telephone hours:
8 a.m. 5 p.m. Tuesday - Friday
8 a.m. 6 p.m. Monday (or 1st day
following a holiday weekend)
PEBTF Benefit News is available in
an alternative format. Please contact
the PEBTF to discuss your needs.
Medical Tip for Spring Allergies
Ah, spring . . . . The cold, blustery weather is over, the grass is turning green, the flowers
and trees are blooming, and people are sneezing. Seasonal allergies affect 35 million Americans,
and most of these seasonal allergies occur in the spring and fall seasons.
Seasonal allergies are caused by airborne pollens that are released by trees, grasses and
weeds as they pollinate and fertilize other plants of the same kind. When pollen grains get into
the nose of someone who is allergic, they send the immune system into overdrive. Molds in
outdoor air also may contribute to seasonal allergies.
To prevent or relieve symptoms of seasonal allergies:
n Use over-the-counter antihistamines
n Keep your homes doors and windows closed. Use your air conditioner. Clean the air filters
often. Clean bookshelves, vents and other places where pollen can collect. Vacuum twice a
week, but wear a mask because vacuuming can kick up pollen, mold and dust
n Limit outdoor activity, particularly in the morning. In general, pollen counts are high
between 5 a.m. and 10 a.m. Allergy symptoms tend to be high on breezy days and low on
rainy days
n Keep the car windows closed
n Take a shower and change clothes if youve been outside for any significant amount of time
Visit the PEBTF Web site to link directly to WebMD. You will find WebMD Health News on
the home page of the site.
Source: WebMD
This newsletter contains a
partial, general description
of the Plan. It is provided for
informational purposes only
and should not be viewed
as a contract, offer of
coverage, confirmation of
eligibility or investment, tax,
medical or other advice. In
the event of a conflict
between this newsletter and
the official plan documents,
the official plan documents
will control. The PEBTF
reserves the right to amend,
modify or terminate the
terms of the Plan, including
any options available under
the Plan, at any time and for
any reason, with or without
prior notice.

EXHIBIT PX-55

Its J ust the Right Thing to Do | NBC 10 Philadelphia
http://www.printthis.clickability.com/...5080597&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcphiladelphia.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2FSame-Sex-Benefits-for-Pennsylvania-State-Workers.html[4/14/2014 4:22:10 PM]

Powered by

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

advertisement
More Photos and Videos
Plush Studios/Getty Images
Pennsylvania already offers employees life-insurance and long-term care options for domestic partners, but they were not
eligible for the medical benefits.
It's about time. Many state workers and
retirees in Pennsylvania are finally able to
extend health benefits to their domestic
partners gay or straight.
Essentially, domestic partners and their
dependent children will be treated the same as
spouses of the covered employees and
retirees. The benefits come through the
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund and they include medical, prescription drug, dental,
vision and hearing coverage.
The benefit takes effect July 1 and covers more than 140,000 active and retired workers under the
governor's jurisdiction.
Governor Ed Rendell not only supported the move, but felt it was long overdue.
"The more people that are covered by health insurance, the better, that's our general world view,"
said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "But in this particular case, it's just a matter of fairness. Gay
employees work equally as hard, equally as long as any other state employee and deserve to be
treated equally."
HOME > NEWS > LOCAL
Its Just the Right Thing to Do
New benefit takes effect July 1
PHOTOS AND VIDEOS
PHOTOS
OUT AND ABOUT
CELEBRITIES: MISSOURI...
PHOTOS
GAY CELEBRITIES
ARE OUT AND ABOUT
By Marc Levy | Friday, May 15, 2009 | Updated 7:47 AM EDT
Its J ust the Right Thing to Do | NBC 10 Philadelphia
http://www.printthis.clickability.com/...5080597&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcphiladelphia.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2FSame-Sex-Benefits-for-Pennsylvania-State-Workers.html[4/14/2014 4:22:10 PM]

Find this article at:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Same-Sex-Benefits-for-Pennsylvania-State-Workers.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

NBC Universal, Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
The trustees actually voted back in September to approve the new benefit, but no fanfare or media
coverage followed. Now, word is getting out because the trust fund is sending information to
beneficiaries after getting forms, procedures and guidelines ready.
"I think the trustees were all in agreement that it was the right thing to do and the time to do it,"
said David R. Fillman, the trust fund chairman who also heads the AFSCME local that represents
thousands of state employees. It was a matter of costing things out and making sure it was
affordable but, putting that aside, this is something we should have done a while ago, and were
glad were doing it now, Fillman told Philadelphia Gay News. Its just the right thing to do.
The move also puts Pennsylvania in a better position to recruit and keep the most qualified
workers, according to Christy Leo, communications director for PEBTF. We basically want to
become competitive with other employers, Leo said. A lot of other employers do provide such a
benefit, so in order to be competitive we thought we needed to extend benefits to domestic
partners.
To be eligible for coverage, domestic partners have to be at least 18. You have to show you've
lived together for at least six months and provide proof -- such as a joint bank account or an
assignment of power of attorney -- that your lives are intertwined.
Copyright Associated Press / NBC 10 Philadelphia

EXHIBIT PX-56

Most Virulent When Combined With Crocs, 2009 WLNR 14846542
2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
6JoJoq HoLIIne (Pg. UnuvuII. OnIIne)
zooq WNR 1q8q6qz
HoLIIne, TIe
CopyrIgIL zooq NuLIonuI JournuI, nc.
June o, zooq
MosL VIruIenL WIen CombIned WILI Crocs
A new "pandemic is sweeping the nation," and "if you calf swells into your foot, erasing all ankle definition, you may be among
the millions of Americans suffering from the dreaded cankle." Starting 7/1, Gold's Gym is launching "Cankles Awareness
Month" to combat this unsightly scourge, offering a free seven-day "cankle-busting" trial session and "cankle resources" on
Facebook and "SayNoToCankles.com," including "workouts, diets and fashion tips." Nashua Gold's Gym fitness trainer R.J .
Brown, with some words of encouragement: "Simple cankle workouts can be for anybody. AS long as you're in the gym three
times a week, you'll definitely see a noticeable difference" (Gill, Nashua Telegraph, 6/30).
PA state Sen. J ohn Eichelberger "refused to apologize to a group of gays, lesbians and their supporters" 6/29 for saying two
weeks ago during a radio debate that he opposes gay marriage, noting the state already is "allowing them to exist." He also "called
homosexual relationships dysfunctional and equated gay marriage to polygamy and pedophilia." Asked whether he would
apologize, Eichelberger said only, "I think you know the answer to that." He then "walked away," carrying petitions containing
"5,000 signatures of gay rights supporters" given to him by Keystone Progress (Mauriello, "Early Returns," Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette, 6/29).
You're Here, But That's All You Get From Me
Motivational Speeches Probably Not Enough For This Crowd
"If Flint voters elect him mayor" in Aug., Ronald Higgerson "plans to make the city a manufacturing hub" for medical marijuana,
"putting unemployed laborers to work" by "growing, harvesting and selling tons" of the drug. Higgerson: "We will base this
off the (General Motors) model of production. Give the city of Flint citizens one seed, and they will give you back 100,000
plants. ... Let's get our heads out of the sand and get to work" (Longley, Flint J ournal, 6/28).
The One That Got Away
"I was almost a Michael J ackson biographer" (LA Daily News, 6/29).
---- Index References ----
Company: GENERAL MOTORS CORP
News Subject: (Social Issues (1SO05); Health & Family (1HE30); Human Sexuality (1HU27); Gay & Lesbian Issues (1GA65))
Language: EN
Most Virulent When Combined With Crocs, 2009 WLNR 14846542
2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Other Indexing: (FLINT; GENERAL MOTORS; KEYSTONE PROGRESS (MAURIELLO; LA DAILY NEWS)
(Eichelberger; Higgerson; J ohn Eichelberger; Michael J ackson; Motivational Speeches; Nashua Gold; Nashua Telegraph; R.J .
Brown; Ronald Higgerson; Starting)
Word Count: 400
End of Document 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claimto original U.S. Government Works.

EXHIBIT PX-57

Same Sex Partners Can Celebrate | NBC 10 Philadelphia
http://www.printthis.clickability.com/...fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcphiladelphia.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2FSame-Sex-Benefits-in-Effect-for-Pennsylvania-State-Workers.html[4/14/2014 4:21:07 PM]

Powered by


advertisement
More Photos and Videos
Poncho/Getty Images
Pennsylvania becomes the 16th state in the country to extend health benefits to domestic partners of state workers.
Today's the day. July 1, 2009. Health coverage
kicks in for domestic partners -- gay or straight
-- of many state workers and retirees in
Pennsylvania.
"This is the greatest step toward equal rights
for the LGBT community in Pennsylvania since
Gov. Shapp outlawed discrimination in state
employment in 1975," said Mark Segal,
Publisher of The Philadelphia Gay News.
Essentially, domestic partners and their dependent children will be treated the same as spouses of
the covered employees and retirees. The benefits comes through the Pennsylvania Employees
Benefit Trust Fund and includes medical, prescription drug, dental, vision and hearing coverage.
The benefits covers more than 140,000 active and retired workers. Governor Ed Rendell not only
supported the move, but felt it was long overdue.
"The more people that are covered by health insurance, the better, that's our general world view,"
said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "But in this particular case, it's just a matter of fairness. Gay
employees work equally as hard, equally as long as any other state employee and deserve to be
HOME > NEWS > LOCAL
Same Sex Partners Can Celebrate
Domestic partner benefits go into effect today for state workers in Pennsylvania
PHOTOS AND VIDEOS
PHOTOS
OUT AND ABOUT
CELEBRITIES: MISSOURI...
PHOTOS
NYC GAY
PRIDE PARADE 2009
By Marc Levy and Karen Araiza | Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009 | Updated 1:22 PM EDT
Same Sex Partners Can Celebrate | NBC 10 Philadelphia
http://www.printthis.clickability.com/...fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcphiladelphia.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2FSame-Sex-Benefits-in-Effect-for-Pennsylvania-State-Workers.html[4/14/2014 4:21:07 PM]

Find this article at:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Same-Sex-Benefits-in-Effect-for-Pennsylvania-State-Workers.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

NBC Universal, Inc. | All Rights Reserved.
treated equally."
Trustees voted back in September to approve the benefits.
"I think the trustees were all in agreement that it was the right thing to do and the time to do it,"
said David R. Fillman, the trust fund chairman who also heads the AFSCME local that represents
thousands of state employees. It was a matter of costing things out and making sure it was
affordable but, putting that aside, this is something we should have done a while ago, and were
glad were doing it now, Fillman told Philadelphia Gay News. Its just the right thing to do.
The move also puts Pennsylvania in a better position to recruit and keep the most qualified
workers, according to Christy Leo, communications director for PEBTF. We basically want to
become competitive with other employers, Leo said. A lot of other employers do provide such a
benefit, so in order to be competitive we thought we needed to extend benefits to domestic
partners.
To be eligible for coverage, domestic partners have to be at least 18. You have to show you've
lived together for at least six months and provide proof -- such as a joint bank account or an
assignment of power of attorney -- that your lives are intertwined.

Copyright Associated Press / NBC 10 Philadelphia

EXHIBIT PX-58


EXHIBIT PX-59

1
IEWPOINT
IEWPOINT
Newsletter of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference
Spring 2010
V
o
l
u
m
e

2
5

I
s
s
u
e

1
T
here is a crowded field of candidates for U.S. Senator, governor and lieutenant governor in Pennsylvanias
Democratic and Republican primary elections. The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) sent a
questionnaire to the candidates to survey their positions on key issues that are important to Catholics. The
responses of the candidates for U.S. Senator and governor are inside this issue of Viewpoint. Responses from
the candidates for lieutenant governor as well as the full responses of the candidates for senate and governor
are available online at www.pacatholic.org/faith-politics.
Pennsylvania Primary Election
May 18, 2010
CANDIDATES FOR U.S. SENATOR
Democrats
Joe Sestak
Arlen Specter
Republicans
Peg Luksik
Pat Toomey
CANDIDATES FOR PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR
Democrats Republicans
Tom Corbett
Samuel E. Rohrer
CANDIDATES FOR PENNSYLVANIA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Democrats
Doris A. Smith-Ribner
H. Scott Conklin
Jonathan A. Saidel
Republicans
Steve Johnson
Jean Craig Pepper
Russ Diamond
Chet Beiler
Jim Cawley
Dan Onorato
Jack Wagner
Anthony Hardy Williams
Joseph M. Hoeffel
Billy McCue
John Kennedy
Stephen A. Urban
Daryl Metcalfe
Look up your polling place at
www.votespa.com

2
What is
the PCC?
The Pennsylvania
Catholic Conference is
the public affairs arm
of Pennsylvanias
Catholic bishops and
the Catholic dioceses
of Pennsylvania. There
are 10 Catholic
dioceses in the
Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Eight are
Latin Rite dioceses,
fully contained within
the Commonwealth.
Two are Byzantine Rite
dioceses with Apostolic
Sees in Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh.
Dr. Robert J. OHara
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
rjoh@pacatholic.org
Francis J. Viglietta
DIRECTOR OF
SOCIAL CONCERNS
fjv@pacatholic.org
Sean P. McAleer
DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION
smcaleer@pacatholic.org
Sr. Clare Christi
Schiefer, OSF
PRESIDENT, PCHA
srccs@pacatholic.org
Amy B. Hill, APR
DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNICATIONS
abhill@pacatholic.org
CANDIDATE RESPONSES - U.S. SENATOR
Do you support or oppose the use of
taxpayer funds to pay for abortion?
DEMOCRATS
SESTAK Did not respond
SPECTER OPPOSE
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK OPPOSE*
* Oppose abortion - period
TOOMEY OPPOSE
Do you support or oppose legislation to
prevent federal agencies and states that
receive federal funds from discriminating
against health care providers who do not
perform or participate in abortions (Hyde-
Weldon Amendment)?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER OPPOSE
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK SUPPORT*
* Support conscience clause provisions
for agencies and workers.
TOOMEY SUPPORT
continue and expand current federal laws
that provide educational benefits to
students and teachers in private and
religious schools on an equitable basis in
comparison to the benefits received by
public school students and teachers?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER OPPOSE*
* I have concerns about the
constitutional separation of church and
state.
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK Did not indicate*
* Support endi ng federal rol e i n
education. If federal govt is involved,
there should be no discrimination against
non-government schools
TOOMEY SUPPORT*
* I have been a long-term advocate for
expanding parents choice in schools
through different funding mechanism.
What is your position on providing a
federal tax credit to businesses that
donate to scholarship organizations that
provide scholarships for low-income
students at private and religious schools
in grades kindergarten through 12?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER OPPOSE
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK SUPPORT
TOOMEY Did not indicate*
* I have been a long-term supporter of
PAs EITC Program that is very similar.
Will you support or oppose significant
annual increases in poverty-focused
development assistance to reduce global
poverty and increase the percentage of
gross domestic product (GDP) contributed
in foreign aid?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK OPPOSE*
* We have a federal debt of over $12
trillion dollars. We need to decrease
federal spending, not pledge to spend
more.
TOOMEY OPPOSE*
* Our perilous budget situation does not
allow for this.
increase aid for refugees who are fleeing
from persecution abroad and to provide
adequate funding for the U.S. refugee
admissions program?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
* Support appropriate asylum for those
fleeing persecution.
* I support aid for refugees fleeing
persecution, but I dont know if an increase
in aid is necessary at this time.
3
Indicate your position on this statement: The
government should assume financial responsibility for
providing affordable, accessible health care for the
uninsured.
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
* Do not support concept that everyone has a right
to have someone else pay for their health care. There
is a place for state government to assist; however
socialized medicine is a proven failure.
* I support helping those who are unable to help
themselves. Those who are capable of supporting
themselves should do so.
Do you support or oppose embryonic stem cell
research?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK OPPOSE
TOOMEY OPPOSE
Do you support or oppose legislation that would
guarantee comprehensive freedom of conscience for
health care providers and health care institutions?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER OPPOSE
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK SUPPORT
TOOMEY SUPPORT
Do you support or oppose efforts to pass legislation
that would make sexual orientation and gender identity
or expression protected classes equivalent to other
protected classes (e.g., race, religion, sex, etc.)?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK OPPOSE
TOOMEY OPPOSE
Do you support or oppose overturning the federal
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK OPPOSE
TOOMEY OPPOSE
Do you support or oppose legislation that would permit
undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United
States for a number of years, have worked and built
equities in our country, and who do not have criminal
records to register with the government and take
steps to earn legal status?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
LUKSIK OPPOSE*
* Do not support rewarding illegal activity with
citizenship; do support addressing immigration issues
by closing borders, removing incentives; and
addressing those already here with a plan.
TOOMEY OPPOSE*
* I support higher levels of legal immigration but
oppose granting legal status to those who have broken
our laws.
expedite the issuance of permanent visas for immediate
family members, such as children, siblings, and
spouses, of U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent
residents?
DEMOCRATS
SPECTER SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
* Cannot give a blanket answer to what should be a
case-by-case decision.
* I would support this in some cases, but it must be
done in a way that respects the rule of law and
protects the security of our country.
4
CANDIDATE RESPONSES - PA GOVERNOR
Which statement reflects your position most
accurately?
a. I do not oppose legalized abortion.
b. I oppose legalized abortion in all circumstances.
c. I oppose legalized abortion, except when the
life of the mother is in danger.
d. I oppose legalized abortion, except when the
life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy
is a result of rape or incest.
DEMOCRATS
ONORATO Did not indicate*
* As governor, I would support Pennsylvanias current
law.
WAGNER d.*
* If Roe v. Wade were overturned and the decision
to protect unborn human life were returned to the
states, I would support a state law to protect unborn
children with an exception to protect the life of the
mother. It is likely that any law passed by the General
Assembly would also include exceptions for the cases
of rape or incest; I would support such a law.
WILLIAMS Did not respond
HOEFFEL a.*
* I trust women to make their own personal, private
decisions regarding reproductive health issues.
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT d.
ROHRER Did not respond
What is your position on providing annual cost of
living increases for low-income Pennsylvanians
receiving cash assistance grants?
DEMOCRATS
* I would support COLAs if the states financial
condition allows.
WAGNER Did not indicate*
* Support, if such increases are both necessary and
fiscally responsible.
HOEFFEL SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT SUPPORT*
* I would prefer to promote financial independence
through economic recovery.
What is your position on legislation that would
provide direct grants to parents to choose the schools
that they believe are best suited for their children,
including nonpublic schools?
DEMOCRATS
* I support, and would expand, the Educational
Improvement Tax Credit.
* I have always been open-minded about new and
innovative ways to strengthen the quality of
education. I voted for both the Charter School Law
and the Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program.
I would want to review the details of this legislation.
HOEFFEL OPPOSE*
* I believe public money should be spent on public
schools.
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT SUPPORT*
* I favor the EITC and promotion of greater
educational options.
Do you support or oppose embryonic stem cell
research?
DEMOCRATS
* I oppose the creation of embryos for stem cell
research.
WAGNER OPPOSE*
* Oppose generally, but I would want to review the
details of such legislation.
HOEFFEL SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT OPPOSE*
* Promising research can be pursued without creating
or destroying embryos.
5
What is your position on amending the Pennsylvania
Constitution to define marriage as the union between
one man and one woman?
DEMOCRATS
ONORATO OPPOSE*
* I support the current law, which includes this
definition.
* I voted for Act 124 of 1996 as a State Senator.
HOEFFEL OPPOSE*
* I support full marriage equality for same-sex
couples.
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT SUPPORT*
* Constitutional amendment would help safeguard
marriage against an alternative agenda.
add state restri cti ons to exi sti ng federal
prohibitions concerning the hiring of undocumented
i mmi grants or the provi si on of
heal thcare or government servi ces to the
undocumented?
DEMOCRATS
* This issue is best addressed at the federal level.
* These issues will generally be decided at the federal
level. I am open-minded about these issues at the
state level and would want to see the details of such
legislation.
HOEFFEL OPPOSE
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT SUPPORT*
* Pennsylvania has a responsibility to ensure eligibility
of all participants.
What is your position on the death penalty in
Pennsylvania?
DEMOCRATS
ONORATO SUPPORT
WAGNER SUPPORT*
* I am open-minded to finding ways to validate the
process of how the death penalty is applied, such as
DNA testing.
HOEFFEL SUPPORT*
* I support the death penalty only for murders that
were pre-meditated.
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT SUPPORT*
* Its needed as a disincentive and penalty for heinous
crimes.
What is your position on restoring state funding to
the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program for
the aged, blind and disabled Pennsylvanians?
DEMOCRATS
* I support this restoration once the states financial
condition allows.
WAGNER SUPPORT
HOEFFEL SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT SUPPORT*
* Supporting targeted populations should be
prioritized while reducing overall spending.
What is your position on legislation requiring
employers to provide employee benefits to which they
are morally opposed, for example, mandating coverage
for contraceptives or benefits to same-sex partners
of employees?
DEMOCRATS
* I would consider on a case-by-case basis with
religious exemptions.
* I generally believe that employers should make
these decisions. I would want to see the details of
such legislation.
HOEFFEL SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT OPPOSE*
* I oppose mandates contrary to the moral
conscience of employers.
6
Which statement reflects your position most
accurately?
a. Religious childcare and pre-kindergarten
providers should be subject to government
review of educational content.
b. Religious childcare and pre-kindergarten
providers should follow state standards for
health and safety of children, but be free to
determine their own educational content based
on the teachings of their faith tradition.
c. Religious childcare and pre-kindergarten
providers should be free from government
regulation.
DEMOCRATS
ONORATO b.
WAGNER b.
HOEFFEL b.
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT c.*
* Providers should develop services appropriate for
their faith and community.
Indicate your position on this statement: The
government should assume financial responsibility for
providing affordable, accessible health care for the
uninsured.
DEMOCRATS
* The national government should ensure access to
quality affordable healthcare.
* I am open-minded to any proposal to expand access
to health care for the uninsured in a fiscally responsible
way. I would want to review the details of such
legislation, which may be unnecessary in light of the
recently enacted federal health care reform law.
HOEFFEL SUPPORT*
* I support establishing a single-payer system modeled
on Medi care to provi de heal th care for al l
Pennsylvanians.
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT OPPOSE*
* I oppose public option but support greater access
to healthcare.
What is your position on legislation that forces health
care providers to provide, pay for or refer for services
contrary to their conscience for moral or religious
reasons?
DEMOCRATS
* We should protect both religious institutions and
patient rights.
WAGNER OPPOSE
HOEFFEL OPPOSE
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT OPPOSE*
* I support safeguarding the moral conscience of
Pennsylvanias healthcare providers.
Do you support or oppose increased funding for
Educational Improvement Tax Credits (EITC) if the
state budget includes an increase in public school
funding?
DEMOCRATS
ONORATO SUPPORT*
* I support an increase if the states financial condition
allows.
WAGNER SUPPORT*
* As long as both sets of increases are fiscally
responsible. I voted to create the Educational
Improvement Tax Credit Program and, later, to
expand and increase funding to the program.
HOEFFEL SUPPORT
REPUBLICANS
CORBETT SUPPORT*
* EITC is crucial to preserve an array of educational
options.
CANDIDATES FOR
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Space constraints did not allow PCC to print the
responses of the candidates for lieutenant governor
in Viewpoint. Complete responses are available online
on PCCs website:
www.pacatholic.org/faith-politics
CANDIDATE RESPONSES - PA GOVERNOR (continued)
7
Legislative Review
The PCC supports the following legislation:
Social Concerns Department
House Bill 1968 Access to Adoption Records - This bill would establish procedures for the disclosure
of information regarding adoption without endangering the identity of any of the
parties involved. It would require certain procedures for the storage and maintenance
of attorney or agency records in adoption.
Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association
Senate Bill 190 Childrens Health InsuranceProgram (CHIP) - This bill would extend the Childrens
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through December 31, 2015. NOTE: A different bill
(SB 237) was amended to extend CHIP to 2013. It was signed into law on March 22,
2010. PCHA supported this alternative legisilation.
The PCC opposes the following legislation:
Social Concerns Department
House Bill 1978 Privacy of birth parents in adoption - This bill would drastically change protections
found under current law for the privacy of birth parents in an adoption. The bill does
not allow a birth mother to veto the release of birth certificate information.
Education Department
State Budget Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) cuts - Last year, the EITC program
was cut $15 million. It is scheduled for another $10 million cut in this years budget.
PCC is lobbying to restore EITC to its original funding of $75 million.
Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association
Senate Bill 1175 Purely Public Charity Act - These bills seek to amend the Act to impose essential
House Bill 2192 service fees on tax-exempt properties owned by institutions of purely public charity.
Online Election Resources
www.pacatholic.org/faith-politics
www.votespa.com
joesestak.com
specter2010.com
pegluksik.com
toomeyforsenate.com
voteonorato.com
jackwagner.org
williams4governor.com
joehoeffel2010.com
tomcorbettforgovernor.com
samrohrer.org
paforsaidel.com
scottconklin.net
smithribnerforlieutenantgovernor.com
billymccue.com
cawleyforlg.com
stevejohnson2010.com
electsteveurban.com
kennedyforlg.com
votechet.com
pepper2010.com
russdiamond.org
darylmetcalfe.com
8
N O N - P R O F I T
O R G A N I Z A T I O N
U . S . P O S T A G E
P A I D
H A R R I S B U R G , P A
P E R M I T # 3 7 8
I E W P O I N TI E W P O I N T
P e n n s y l v a n i a C a t h o l i c C o n f e r e n c e
P O B o x 2 8 3 5 , H a r r i s b u r g , P A 1 7 1 0 5
C H A N G E S E R V I C E R E Q U E S T E D
Viewpoint is published by the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the public affairs agency of
Pennsylvanias Catholic bishops. For more information, contact Amy B. Hill, APR, editor, at (717)
238-9613 or email at abhill@pacatholic.org. Visit our website at www.pacatholic.org.

EXHIBIT PX-60

Brian Sims, Pennsylvania Lawmaker, Silenced On DOMA By
Colleagues Citing 'God's Law'
An openly gay lawmaker was silenced by colleagues on the Pennsylvania House floor Thursday when he attempted to speak about the
Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
State Rep. Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia) took to the House floor on Thursday to discuss the high court's landmark ruling, which found the
federal law barring the government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by states to be unconstitutional. However, as
WHYY News and Philly.com report, Sims' remarks were blocked by several state lawmakers using a procedural maneuver.
One of those lawmakers, conservative state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), told WHYY that he believed Sims' comments would be a
violation of "God's law."
"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that
ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's
law," Metcalfe said.
Sims said he had no intention of criticizing gay marriage detractors, and had only planned to highlight the importance of the court's
ruling.
"I wasn't planning on chastising anybody. I wasn't planning on discussing how far we have to come in Pennsylvania or that we really
have no civil rights in Pennsylvania," Sims said.
Two other Democrats attempted to speak in support of Sims, but they too were blocked.
At the end of the session, Sims rose to speak again, criticizing Metcalfe and others who had blocked him.
"A few months ago I reminded this House that we put our hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way
around. What I did was in no way against the law of any God," he said, referencing a speech he made in April. "I can't call anyone a
bigot, a homophobe or racist, but language used against me does not live up to the standards of this body."
Sims, who entered office in January, is the first openly gay lawmaker elected to the state legislature.
On Thursday, Sims and fellow Democratic Rep. Steve McCarter vowed to introduce a measure in the state House allowing same-sex
marriage in Pennsylvania.
"LGBT Pennsylvanians are seeing their neighbors in New York, Maryland and Delaware, among other states, now qualify for the
approximately 1,000 federal rights and benefits that come with civil marriage and they are increasingly asking why they don't have
those same rights, as well as the state rights and benefits," Sims said in a statement.
April 15, 2014
The Huffington Post | By Mollie Reilly Posted: 06/27/2013 10:32 pm EDT | Updated: 06/28/2013 4:00 pm EDT
Tuesday, April 15, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/brian-sims-doma_n_3513741.html?view=print...

EXHIBIT PX-61


EXHIBIT PX-62


VIDEO FILED WITH COURT


EXHIBIT PX-63

Corbett apologizes for remarks about same-sex couples
Tom Corbett
(AP Photo/Matt Rourke, file)
John L. Micek | jmicek@pennlive.com By John L. Micek | jmicek@pennlive.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on October 04, 2013 at 11:30 AM, updated October 04, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Gov. Tom Corbett has apologized for remarks he made during a televised interview earlier today in which he
appeared to compare same-sex marriages to incest.
Here's the full text of his statement:
During a recent interview, I was asked to comment on the ruling by Judge Pellegrini that the Montgomery County Clerk of
Courts did not have the power to decide the constitutionality of state laws.
My words were not intended to offend anyone. If they did, I apologize.
I explained that current Pennsylvania statute delineates categories of individuals unable to obtain a marriage license. As an
example, I cited siblings as one such category, which is clearly defined in state law. My intent was to provide an example of
these categories.
The constitutional question is now before a federal court and that is the venue in which same-sex couples wishing to legally
marry have standing to intervene and be heard. Same-sex marriage is an important issue and the question of its legal
status is one that will be heard and decided upon its merits, with respect and compassion shown to all sides.
Corbett was speaking about gay marriage on Friday morning when an anchor on WHP-TV in Harrisburg asked about a
statement his lawyers made in a recent court filing, comparing the marriage of gay couples to the marriage of children
because neither can legally marry in the state, The Associated Press reported.
"It was an inappropriate analogy, you know," Corbett said. "I think a much better analogy would have been brother and
sister, don't you?"
In August, administration attorneys said in a court filing that same-sex marriages were no more valid than a marriage
between two 12-year-olds because state law bans both unions.
Monday, October 21, 2013 http://blog.pennlive.com/capitol-notebook//print.html?entry=/2013/10/corbett_apologize...
Corbett later rejected that analogy, saying the case revolved around the question of whether a public official had "the
authority to disregard state law based on his own personal legal opinion about the constitutionality of a statute," the
Associated Press reported.
2013 PennLive.com. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 21, 2013 http://blog.pennlive.com/capitol-notebook//print.html?entry=/2013/10/corbett_apologize...

EXHIBIT PX-64

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WHITEWOOD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WOLF, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action

No. 13-1861-JEJ

STIPULATION OF FACTS

Plaintiffs and Defendants Meuser and Wolf hereby stipulate as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Fredia and Lynn Hurdle, Fernando Chang-Muy and Len
Rieser, Dawn Plummer and Diana Polson, and Sandy Ferlanie and Christine
Donato are lesbian and gay couples, who reside in Pennsylvania and wish to be
married in Pennsylvania. Each couple satisfies all requirements to be married in
Pennsylvania except that they are of the same sex.
2. Plaintiffs Deb and Susan Whitewood, Edwin Hill and David Palmer,
Heather and Kath Poehler, Helena Miller and Dara Raspberry, Marla Cattermole
and J ulia Lobur, Angela Gillem and Gail Lloyd, and Ron Gebhardtsbauer and Greg
Wright, are gay and lesbian couples, who reside in Pennsylvania and are married as
result of weddings performed in other states pursuant to the laws of those
- 2 -
respective states. Each couple satisfies all requirements to have their marriages
recognized in Pennsylvania except that they are of the same sex.
3. Plaintiff Maureen Hennessey is a widow, her same-sex spouse Mary
Beth McIntyre having died in 2013. They were married pursuant to the laws of
Massachusetts. Their marriage satisfies all requirements to be recognized in
Pennsylvania except that they are of the same sex.
4. Plaintiffs A.W. and K.W. are the children of plaintiff couple Deb and
Susan Whitewood.
5. Defendant Michael Wolf is the Secretary of Health of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, as such, serves as the head of the
Pennsylvania Department of Health.
6. Pennsylvanias practices, policies, and laws prohibiting marriage and
recognition of marriage for same-sex couples are codified at 23 Pa.C.S. 1102
and 1704 (Marriage Law).
7. Although the parties disagree regarding the constitutionality of the
Marriage Law, the Secretary of Revenue and the Secretary of Health are proper
defendants in this action to the extent that Plaintiffs are affected by the exercise of
those officials responsibilities under Pennsylvania law in the application and
enforcement of the Marriage Law.
8. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 1104 and 1306, the Department of Health
- 3 -
oversees the preparation and approval of the marriage license application and
marriage license forms used in county offices across the Commonwealth;
consistent with the Marriage Law, the marriage license application and marriage
license forms prescribed by the Department of Health describe the applicants and
licensees as bride and groom.
9. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 1106, the Department of Health is charged
with receiving reports of issued marriage licenses from individual counties and
with publishing statistics derived from those reports.
10. Under Article II of the Vital Statistics Law of 1953, the Department of
Health oversees the creation of forms for certificates of death, including the
issuance, maintenance and amendments to certificates of death. See, e.g., 35 P.S.
450.201, 450.202, 450.204.
11. The certificate of death form prescribed by the Department of
Health requires a declaration of the marital status at time of death and
surviving spouses name of the deceased, if there is one. Because of the
Marriage Law, an individual with a same-sex spouse who has died cannot have his
or her out-of-state marriage recognized, or his or her name listed as the decedents
spouse, on the certificate of death. The Marriage Law also precludes an
amendment to a previously issued certificate of death to reflect a deceased
persons marriage to an individual of the same sex. Consequently, because of the
- 4 -
Marriage Law, the 2012 Death Certificate Registration Manual (Revised March 13,
2013), published by the Department of Health, does not allow a same-sex spouse
or partner from being identified under item 11, listing the surviving spouses
name.
12. All of the Plaintiff couples who are not yet married desire to obtain a
marriage license and be married in Pennsylvania, but the Marriage Law, under
which the Department of Health has administrative responsibilities, prevents them
from doing so.
13. All of the married Plaintiff couples, upon their deaths, want their own
and their spouses respective certificate of death issued and maintained by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to reflect their marriage and the name of the
surviving spouse; but the Marriage Law, as administered by the Department of
Health, does not permit such recognition.
14. The certificate of death of Mary Beth McIntyre does not recognize her
out-of-state marriage to Plaintiff Maureen Hennessey. Under the heading, marital
status at time of death, the certificate of death states that Mary Beth McIntyre was
never married. Maureen Hennessey does not appear under the heading
surviving spouses name. Maureen Hennessey desires to be identified as the
surviving spouse on the certificate of death issued for Mary Beth McIntyre.
Because of the Marriage Law, further resort through Department of Health or other
- 5 -
administrative procedures by Maureen Hennessey to seek amendment to the
Certificate of Death of Mary Elizabeth McIntyre to identify Maureen Hennessey
under surviving spouses name (instead of as partner under informants
name) or to reflect McIntyres marital status at time of death as married
(instead of never married) would be futile.
15. Maureen Hennessey desires to have Mary Beth McIntyres certificate
of death amended to reflect that Mary Beth McIntyre was married at the time of
her death and to identify Maureen Hennessey as Mary Beth McIntyres surviving
spouse.
16. Defendant Dan Meuser is the Secretary of Revenue of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, as such, serves as head of the Pennsylvania
Department of Revenue.
17. The Department of Revenue prescribes the forms necessary for the
assessment and collection of state taxes, including state income taxes. See, e.g., 72
P.S. 207 (The Department of Revenue shall prepare, promulgate, and distribute
such forms as may be necessary to persons, associations, corporations, public
officers, and other debtors, required by law to make and file reports or returns with
the department.); 72 P.S. 7332 (The [D]epartment [of Revenue] shall prescribe
by regulation the place for filing and return, declaration, statement, or other
document required pursuant [Article III of the Tax Reform Code of 1971 (relating
- 6 -
to personal income tax)] and for payment of any tax.); 72 P.S. 7335(a) (The
[D]epartment [of Revenue] may prescribe by regulation for the keeping of records,
the content and form of returns, declarations, statements and other documents and
the filing of copies of Federal income tax returns and determinations.); 61 Pa.
Code 117.9 (Persons filing returns should use the envelopes and preaddressed
prescribed forms furnished to them by the Department [of Revenue].).
18. The personal income tax return form set forth by the Department of
Revenue (i.e., form PA-40) requires a current resident filer to check a box and
declare his or her filing status as S Single, J Married, Filing J ointly, or M
Married, Filing Separately. Cf. 72 P.S. 7331 (relating to returns of married
individuals, deceased or disabled individuals and fiduciaries); 61 Pa. Code 117.2
(relating to returns of married individuals).
19. All of the married plaintiffs live in Pennsylvania and file personal
income tax returns with the Department of Revenue.
20. All of the married plaintiffs desire and seek to be able to declare
themselves as married and not single on their income tax returns and desire
and seek to have the option of filing jointly. Because of the Marriage Law, a
member of a same-sex couple cannot properly declare himself or herself as
married.
21. Pennsylvania has no law or policy prohibiting the placement of
- 7 -
children for adoption or foster care with same-sex couples.
22. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) is an
administrative agency of the Commonwealth government that is responsible by
law to oversee the child welfare system in Pennsylvania. Agencies that are
licensed and regulated by DPW may and do place children in foster and adoptive
placements with both heterosexual couples and same-sex couples. DPW has no
policy that requires an agency to prefer placement with a heterosexual couple over
a same-sex couple. DPW prescribes forms for prospective adoptive and foster
parents that are gender neutral, identifying applicants as Partner #1 and Partner
#2.

- 8 -
Dated: April 21, 2014

LAMB MCERLANE PC HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL
PUDLIN & SCHILLER

William H. Lamb
J oel Frank
P.O. Box. 565
(610) 430-8000

Attorneys for Secretary of Health
Michael Wolf and Secretary of Revenue
Dan Meuser

By: /s/ Mark A. Aronchick
Mark A. Aronchick
J ohn S. Stapleton
Dylan J . Steinberg
Rebecca S. Melley
th
Floor
(215) 568-6200

Helen E. Casale
401 DeKalb Street, 4
th
Floor
Norristown, PA 19401
(610) 313-1670

ACLU FOUNDATION OF
PENNSYLVANIA

By: /s/ Witold J . Walczak
Witold J . Walczak
313 Atwood Street
(412) 681-7736

Mary Catherine Roper
Molly Tack-Hooper
P.O. Box 40008
(215) 592-1513
J ames D. Esseks
Leslie Cooper
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
- 9 -

(212) 549-2500

Seth F. Kreimer
3400 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
(215) 898-7447

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


1:13-cv-01861 #115.attachments Part 2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1:13-cv-01861 #115.attachments Part 2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EXHIBIT PX-32

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-16 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 106

at 1-877-950-5008 (TDD/TTY callers,

Jean Craig Pepper

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 115-19 Filed 04/21/14 Page 83 of 100

Potrebbero piacerti anche