HARRISBURG (AP) – A Senate panel on Tuesday approved a proposed
constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania, but
it shortened the reach of the legislation by removing a portion
that also would have outlawed civil unions.

The vote to change the legislation, which passed the House last
week, came after sharp debate between Republican senators on the
Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Jane Earll, R-Erie, questioned whether a constitutional
amendment is even needed since state law already bans gay marriage.
There is no existing court challenge to the law and no indication
that a state judge would strike it down, she said.

“Many of us believe we are fighting ghosts,” Earll said.

The bill now heads to the full Senate, where it faces an
uncertain future. It also would need approval from the House this
month if the multiyear process of approving a constitutional
amendment is to continue.

For his part, Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Brockway, the deputy majority
whip, said “I think it’s the intent of the Legislature, and I know
my intent, that marriage is between a man and woman and we need to
preserve the sanctity within that realm.”

Scarnati added with numerous lawmakers facing re-election this
year, “without a doubt we are going to see some grandstanding. It
is an issue that is ultimately important to conservative
Pennsylvanians, including in my district.”

The lawmaker said while the marriage amendment is important,
legislators can’t lose focus on the larger issues already at hand,
including solving escalating property taxes and obtaining a
balanced state budget.

“Voters want results,” Scarnati said. “Pennsylvania is a diverse
state. What works in one part of the state doesn’t necessarily work
on the other.”

Also voting to ban gay marriage on the House side were Reps.
Martin Causer, R-Turtlepoint, and Kathy Rapp, R-Warren.

Earll, who sponsored the change to the House bill, characterized
it as a compromise, but lawmakers and advocates who supported the
previous bill passed by the House on June 6 disagreed.

Civil unions are tantamount to marriages, and allowing them
would scuttle the intent of the House version – if not the whole
effort, they said.

“I just think this amendment destroys the entire purpose” of a
constitutional ban on gay marriage, Sen. Jane Orie, R-Allegheny,
said during debate.

Sen. John Gordner, R-Columbia, said a vote to remove the
language against civil unions was a vote allowing the courts to
create such unions, which he called “judicial activism.” Earll shot
back, “I object to that.”

Amending the constitution requires the approval by the House and
Senate in two successive two-year sessions of the General Assembly
and then the approval of voters in a statewide referendum. The
earliest a proposed amendment can be placed on the statewide ballot
is 2007.

But conservatives who supported the broader ban worried that
changing the bill will lengthen the debate and run out the clock on
the period that the Legislature has to approve a constitutional
amendment this year. Constitutionally, any such legislation must be
approved three months before the November general election.

However, the House and Senate have an extremely busy June on tap
– including finalizing a $25 billion-plus state budget that needs
to be in place by July 1 – before they are scheduled for a
two-month vacation from Harrisburg.

Some proponents of changing the bill to ban just gay marriage
and not civil unions said the change would avoid unintended
consequences – such as preventing private or government employers
from extending health benefits to same-sex couples.

The change to limit the scope of the bill passed 9-5 before the
committee voted 13-1 to send the amended bill to the full Senate.
Only Orie voted against it.

The panel’s five Democrats stayed quiet during the debate and
votes. Afterward, Sen. J. Barry Stout, D-Washington, scolded the
drive to ban gay marriage as a useless diversion of lawmakers’
attention away from subjects that really matter, like raising the
minimum wage and cutting property taxes.

“People are sick and tired of us not addressing the immediate
concerns of our constituents,” Stout said.

Twenty states have adopted constitutional definitions outlawing
gay marriage – including some that ban civil unions – and at least
six others have a ballot question on such a ban this year.