So I attended the hearing on the 10th of April
On April 10th, I attended a state senate hearing on Pennsylvania Senate bill SB 1250, which would define marriage explicitly and bar any other "union" from being "valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth." I took notes, but misplaced my notebook for several days after the event and so was unable to put my thoughts together on the issue.
What follows is my impressions from the event. I regret that I am not trained as a reporter; I have not an attentive ear nor a quick hand, not even a mind with the endurance to efficiently listen and write simultaneously for three hours (especially when the same rhetorical ground is trod repeatedly). I can give very few real quotes and make no claims to impartial presentation. I can state, however, that I entered the event with a somewhat open mind, and by the end of the event I was thorougly convinced of the righteousness of one side.
If you are a student of history, the debate over the meaning of marriage raging in this country is a fascinating case study in how America clutches its traditional roles greedily to its chest. Make no mistake; the narrow definition of marriage encapsulated by SB 1250 is damaging to the legal fabric of the state. It is, additionally, nothing more than a naked bid for separate-but-equal classification dressed up in bad logic. And it should not stand in an America that---through its own history---knows better.
I thought Thursday's event was a town hall meeting, but upon arrival I learned that it was in fact a state senate hearing on a law under consideration. I sat down near the middle of the room, relatively near the "pro" side. Over time the other three-quarters of the room were filled in by the con side. The hearing progressed as a series of witnesses testifying before he senate subcommittee, with senators then responding with questions for each witness.
On the pro side of the argument were a variety of people, including a couple of lawyers, two members of the Catholic institutions of Pennsylvania, and a representative from the Marriage Protection Coalition named Sharon Capretto (tip o' the hat to The Pitt News for filling my memory gap). I was especially curious about the pro position on the issue. One of my primary reasons for attending Thursday's event was that attending school in a liberal college in a city where the city council is "controlled by gays" (in the words of one Oklahoma state representative), I have heard the arguments against specifying marriage over and over again. I had never heard a coherent argument in favor of specifying marriage, so I was excited at the opportunity.
About halfway through the event, my excitement was turned completely into awestruck incredulity. To my amazement, the pro side was not able to put forth a single cogent, coherent argument in favor of specializing the definition of marriage. Arguments ranged from vague and unproven "common sense" statements about the dilution of marriage's importance to a truly forced analogy with the unfair trade practices law (which prevents companies from labeling cans of peas as cans of corn, among other things perfectly reasonable for consumer goods that could cause a life-threatening allergic reaction when consumed). Multiple lawyers testified that the amendment could be passed without threatening the current laws on the books (in cities such as Pittsburgh) that grant equal benefits to homosexual partners of city servants---as if "we can get away with it, it'll do no harm" is a justification for amending the state constitution! The testimony that caused the most vocal response on the pro side was given by Rev. David A. Zubick, who noted that the Defense of Marriage Act---being only a federal law---could be overturned, and ended his testimony with a call that "We need now what is best for children, families, and society." While emotional, Zubick's assertion that a clear definition of marriage supported these needs was, again, based seemingly on common sense and a notion that the "dilution" of marriage (by allowing homosexuals to have equivalent privileges to heterosexual married couples) would damage these needs. I can't help but wonder how many of Zubick's supporters have ever read the book Framing the Bride, which talks about the forces in Taiwanese society that caused the divorce rate to suddenly spike past 50% in the span of about one generation. I would humbly suggest a few possible other causes of the weakening of the institution of marriage, but I think it would drag us quite afar from the topic at hand---a belief that I doubt the people in favor of this amendment would share.
The con side of the argument was a diverse and interesting group. It ranged from city officials to lawyers to avowed homosexuals to even to a reverend from a (non-Catholic) institution. The arguments against the amendment were broad, but most were legal challenges to the nature of the "functional equivalent of marriage" language in the bill. This was a point of contention for the senators as well, who had repeatedly questioned the pro side witnesses on the paradoxical nature of their argument. The pro side claimed one could pass a bill that would essentially limit the rights of non-marriage relationships while simultaneously preserving laws such as Pittsburgh's city-benefits program, which grants identical benefits to married couples and certain designated non-marriage partnerships (including both homosexual and heterosexual pairings). This argument by the pro---that the amendment didn't strip rights from homosexual couples but at the same time didn't allow them to be "functionally equivalent" to married couples---really stuck in my craw and made it harderto listen to subsequent arguments. I'm not well-versed in rhetoric technique, and a speaker of even middling quality can slip an instance of begging the question right past me with a sufficiently impassioned speech. But I'm a computer scientist by training---try to use Xeno's Paradox to eliminate a dichotomy and I latch on like a bulldog with a bad case of separation anxiety. To their credit, few of the senators were swayed either; while Senator White was convinced that the amendment would not be in conflict with Pittsburgh's ordnances, Senator Browne asked over and over how one determines when a relationship becomes "functionally equivalent:" if there are 1,200 rights associated with a marriage and we grant another institution 1,999 of them, why is it suddenly harmful to grant the 1,200th? Taking another tack on the issue, Anthony Infanti of the Pittsburgh School of Law (a tax specialist) brought his tax code expertise to bear to point out a glaring flaw. He showed exhaustively that the wording of the amendment was so vague that it placed the state in danger of giving up the right to regulate relationships at all; if one interpreted "functional equivalence" on a right-by-right basis (an interpretation not prevented by the letter of this law), one could argue that granting any institution any rights granted to marriage would violate this law.
The con side also brought multiple members that spoke out against the law for practical reasons. A representative from the housing bureau reported that landlords were already calling the bureau to ask if---should this law pass---they would be entitled to deny benefits to unmarried couples that they are currently obligated to offer to both married and unmarried cohabitants. A representative from a domestic violence counciling organization related the harrowing case of Ohio, which after passing a similar law saw convicted abusers appealing on the grounds that their violence could no longer be considered "domestic abuse" since they weren't legally married to their victims. Multiple representatives from Pittsburgh spoke concerning their fear that the amendment would force them to re-draft hard-fought laws that granted privileges and benefits to both homosexual couples and cohabitating heterosexual couples. Regardless of the good intentions of the law, it was made clear that only the goodwill of the courts, landlords, and violent abusers would protect the state from nearly immediate socially negative consequences were this amendment to pass.
And yet regardless of the practical consequences, SB 1250 still stands on its own as a mockery of good moral judgement. When I came to the meeting, I came with only one solid pre-disposition in my mind: all things being equal, it is better to leave a document as rigid as a constitution alone than to change it for fickle and transient reasons. I then did my best to open my mind to arguments explaining to me why these reasons were not fickle---why marriage as an institution demanded clear encoding beyond the common sense into the state's legal foundation. Instead, I was shown exactly the opposite. I was shown that under the thin veneer of moral outrage and "clarity of definition" was simple close-mindedness, nearly blind adherence to moral codes, and the old, naked, American fear of "different." It takes a specific kind of personal creed to go to a marriage debate wearing a pin that says something as off-topic as "Women do regret abortion." But it doesn't take anything more than one of the oldest of American fears to stand in front of a Senate subcommitte and make the claim made by the Marriage Protection Coalition---the claim that interpretation of the law to benefit an unpopular minority would be unconstitutional. "Protection of the unpopular minority" unconstitutional? Ms. Capretto, the constitution is sometimes the unpopular minority's only protection.
I believe I see what this issue is about now. the only reason I didn't see it sooner is that I was blessed with being born after the main thrust of the Civil Rights Movement, so separate-but-equal was something I learned in the history books, not in the street. I knew what it looked like; thanks to the hearing, I now know what it smells like.
Well, I think this issue is about one more thing. But it is already late, and I have written far too long. I'll reserve my other thoughts for a future post.
Take care,
Mark
What follows is my impressions from the event. I regret that I am not trained as a reporter; I have not an attentive ear nor a quick hand, not even a mind with the endurance to efficiently listen and write simultaneously for three hours (especially when the same rhetorical ground is trod repeatedly). I can give very few real quotes and make no claims to impartial presentation. I can state, however, that I entered the event with a somewhat open mind, and by the end of the event I was thorougly convinced of the righteousness of one side.
If you are a student of history, the debate over the meaning of marriage raging in this country is a fascinating case study in how America clutches its traditional roles greedily to its chest. Make no mistake; the narrow definition of marriage encapsulated by SB 1250 is damaging to the legal fabric of the state. It is, additionally, nothing more than a naked bid for separate-but-equal classification dressed up in bad logic. And it should not stand in an America that---through its own history---knows better.
I thought Thursday's event was a town hall meeting, but upon arrival I learned that it was in fact a state senate hearing on a law under consideration. I sat down near the middle of the room, relatively near the "pro" side. Over time the other three-quarters of the room were filled in by the con side. The hearing progressed as a series of witnesses testifying before he senate subcommittee, with senators then responding with questions for each witness.
On the pro side of the argument were a variety of people, including a couple of lawyers, two members of the Catholic institutions of Pennsylvania, and a representative from the Marriage Protection Coalition named Sharon Capretto (tip o' the hat to The Pitt News for filling my memory gap). I was especially curious about the pro position on the issue. One of my primary reasons for attending Thursday's event was that attending school in a liberal college in a city where the city council is "controlled by gays" (in the words of one Oklahoma state representative), I have heard the arguments against specifying marriage over and over again. I had never heard a coherent argument in favor of specifying marriage, so I was excited at the opportunity.
About halfway through the event, my excitement was turned completely into awestruck incredulity. To my amazement, the pro side was not able to put forth a single cogent, coherent argument in favor of specializing the definition of marriage. Arguments ranged from vague and unproven "common sense" statements about the dilution of marriage's importance to a truly forced analogy with the unfair trade practices law (which prevents companies from labeling cans of peas as cans of corn, among other things perfectly reasonable for consumer goods that could cause a life-threatening allergic reaction when consumed). Multiple lawyers testified that the amendment could be passed without threatening the current laws on the books (in cities such as Pittsburgh) that grant equal benefits to homosexual partners of city servants---as if "we can get away with it, it'll do no harm" is a justification for amending the state constitution! The testimony that caused the most vocal response on the pro side was given by Rev. David A. Zubick, who noted that the Defense of Marriage Act---being only a federal law---could be overturned, and ended his testimony with a call that "We need now what is best for children, families, and society." While emotional, Zubick's assertion that a clear definition of marriage supported these needs was, again, based seemingly on common sense and a notion that the "dilution" of marriage (by allowing homosexuals to have equivalent privileges to heterosexual married couples) would damage these needs. I can't help but wonder how many of Zubick's supporters have ever read the book Framing the Bride, which talks about the forces in Taiwanese society that caused the divorce rate to suddenly spike past 50% in the span of about one generation. I would humbly suggest a few possible other causes of the weakening of the institution of marriage, but I think it would drag us quite afar from the topic at hand---a belief that I doubt the people in favor of this amendment would share.
The con side of the argument was a diverse and interesting group. It ranged from city officials to lawyers to avowed homosexuals to even to a reverend from a (non-Catholic) institution. The arguments against the amendment were broad, but most were legal challenges to the nature of the "functional equivalent of marriage" language in the bill. This was a point of contention for the senators as well, who had repeatedly questioned the pro side witnesses on the paradoxical nature of their argument. The pro side claimed one could pass a bill that would essentially limit the rights of non-marriage relationships while simultaneously preserving laws such as Pittsburgh's city-benefits program, which grants identical benefits to married couples and certain designated non-marriage partnerships (including both homosexual and heterosexual pairings). This argument by the pro---that the amendment didn't strip rights from homosexual couples but at the same time didn't allow them to be "functionally equivalent" to married couples---really stuck in my craw and made it harderto listen to subsequent arguments. I'm not well-versed in rhetoric technique, and a speaker of even middling quality can slip an instance of begging the question right past me with a sufficiently impassioned speech. But I'm a computer scientist by training---try to use Xeno's Paradox to eliminate a dichotomy and I latch on like a bulldog with a bad case of separation anxiety. To their credit, few of the senators were swayed either; while Senator White was convinced that the amendment would not be in conflict with Pittsburgh's ordnances, Senator Browne asked over and over how one determines when a relationship becomes "functionally equivalent:" if there are 1,200 rights associated with a marriage and we grant another institution 1,999 of them, why is it suddenly harmful to grant the 1,200th? Taking another tack on the issue, Anthony Infanti of the Pittsburgh School of Law (a tax specialist) brought his tax code expertise to bear to point out a glaring flaw. He showed exhaustively that the wording of the amendment was so vague that it placed the state in danger of giving up the right to regulate relationships at all; if one interpreted "functional equivalence" on a right-by-right basis (an interpretation not prevented by the letter of this law), one could argue that granting any institution any rights granted to marriage would violate this law.
The con side also brought multiple members that spoke out against the law for practical reasons. A representative from the housing bureau reported that landlords were already calling the bureau to ask if---should this law pass---they would be entitled to deny benefits to unmarried couples that they are currently obligated to offer to both married and unmarried cohabitants. A representative from a domestic violence counciling organization related the harrowing case of Ohio, which after passing a similar law saw convicted abusers appealing on the grounds that their violence could no longer be considered "domestic abuse" since they weren't legally married to their victims. Multiple representatives from Pittsburgh spoke concerning their fear that the amendment would force them to re-draft hard-fought laws that granted privileges and benefits to both homosexual couples and cohabitating heterosexual couples. Regardless of the good intentions of the law, it was made clear that only the goodwill of the courts, landlords, and violent abusers would protect the state from nearly immediate socially negative consequences were this amendment to pass.
And yet regardless of the practical consequences, SB 1250 still stands on its own as a mockery of good moral judgement. When I came to the meeting, I came with only one solid pre-disposition in my mind: all things being equal, it is better to leave a document as rigid as a constitution alone than to change it for fickle and transient reasons. I then did my best to open my mind to arguments explaining to me why these reasons were not fickle---why marriage as an institution demanded clear encoding beyond the common sense into the state's legal foundation. Instead, I was shown exactly the opposite. I was shown that under the thin veneer of moral outrage and "clarity of definition" was simple close-mindedness, nearly blind adherence to moral codes, and the old, naked, American fear of "different." It takes a specific kind of personal creed to go to a marriage debate wearing a pin that says something as off-topic as "Women do regret abortion." But it doesn't take anything more than one of the oldest of American fears to stand in front of a Senate subcommitte and make the claim made by the Marriage Protection Coalition---the claim that interpretation of the law to benefit an unpopular minority would be unconstitutional. "Protection of the unpopular minority" unconstitutional? Ms. Capretto, the constitution is sometimes the unpopular minority's only protection.
I believe I see what this issue is about now. the only reason I didn't see it sooner is that I was blessed with being born after the main thrust of the Civil Rights Movement, so separate-but-equal was something I learned in the history books, not in the street. I knew what it looked like; thanks to the hearing, I now know what it smells like.
Well, I think this issue is about one more thing. But it is already late, and I have written far too long. I'll reserve my other thoughts for a future post.
Take care,
Mark