On April 10, LEAD member Doris Cipolla testified against Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1250 before the PA Senate Judiciary Committee at the Allegheny Courthouse in Pittsburgh PA. This is the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment. Here is her testimony:

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am saddened, however, that this amendment is again rearing its ugly head in light of all the conflicting problems we face today.

The Marriage Protection Amendment is little understood by most individuals since its very language is deceptive: “Marriage Protection Amendment,” superficially seeming to appear as an innocuous statement to protect marriage.

And who wouldn’t protect marriage? I, too, would protect marriage. However, the Marriage Protection Amendment has nothing to do with protecting marriage which would sensibly be protected by giving families and couples economic aid, child care, paid parental work leaves, etc…

This amendment has nothing to do with the protection of marriage and everything to do with stopping same-sex couples from gaining the same rights married persons enjoy. In other words, the Marriage Protection Amendment is an anti-gay, anti-lesbian legislation deliberately designed, yes, deliberately designed to ban civil unions to same sex couples. This is a mean-spirited amendment to keep gay and lesbian citizens in the “closets” of second class citizenship and to deny them the legal protection afforded married couples.

The Commonwealth Constitution is to protect not only the rights of the majority but also the rights of the minority. To open our constitution for the purpose of restricting the rights of a minority group is unconscionable. The rule of law can protect us when we stand alone against those who disagree with us, or fear us, or do not like us because we are different provided the rule protects all of us, not just some of us. To support the marriage amendment is a direct violation of the rule of law, a most grievous offense against the civil rights of a minority

Moreover, this amendment is initiated and supported by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as by various evangelical and fundamentalist religious groups. Our constitution guarantees the separation of church and state; no religion has the right to dictate a particular belief. That would be a threat to our democracy. Such implementation undermines the rule of civil law and creates a Taliban-like society, filled with divisiveness and sectarianism.

For those who do not recognize the dangers of allowing matters of religious beliefs to permeate the law, let them be reminded of the time when interracial marriages were illegal, women were denied the right to vote, blacks were denied civil rights, women and children were denied protection by the law, married individuals were denied divorce, and witches were burned at the stake. Throughout history individuals have suffered under institutional religions and their beliefs, beliefs that supported slavery, apartheid, segregation, and even opposition to the Magna Carta

No one is trying to steal the “sacrament of Matrimony” from the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious institution that holds that religious belief. That sacramental rite belongs to those institutions; however, those institutions have no right to demand the state to deny civil unions. The state’s obligation is one of equality for all its citizens. Same-sex couples are entitled to the same protections, benefits, and rights married persons are afforded. The state guarantees freedom of religion and if that religion chooses to believe that same-sex unions are an abomination, let it be so. I simply request that they not impose that belief beyond their church and try to enshrine it in our civil laws and constitution. Our Commonwealth Constitution must not become a vehicle to enforce church/religious law.

No same-sex couple is a threat to any marriage. This amendment must be opposed so that all law abiding taxpayers and citizens of this state are given the same rights enjoyed by mainstream society. After all, we do have the same obligations and responsibilities

I would hope that people could open their hearts and broaden their minds to be tolerant of others. That choice is theirs. But don’t impose a marriage amendment that strips us of our right to equality, our civil rights, and our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Marriage Protection Amendment is offensive, violent, and discriminating. If passed the marriage amendment will have many unintended consequences with far reaching effects.

Being a senior citizen allows me to be “out” to represent the many same-sex couples who remain closeted for fear of job loss or other discriminatory factors. Moreover, having been a teacher, I recognize that the children of same-sex couples have the same needs and aspirations as those children of traditional families. They deserve the same rights, benefits, and protection that all children need. They are all our children.

When the president of Iran visited the United States and refused to acknowledge the existence of gays and lesbians in his country, he became the butt of jokes. America laughed at Ahmadinejad, and to this day we vilify China for its violation of human rights. In reality, then, are we not the hypocrites? Look at how America treats gays and lesbians, certainly not with rights and dignity, and often as satanic, or abominable. I hope that what I convey will change the hearts and minds of people to become receptive to civil unions so that same-sex partners can be guaranteed the same rights married persons enjoy. This will not happen until the marriage amendment is opposed and buried forever. My wish is that gay and lesbian persons can become liberated, break their silence and enjoy their civil rights and that all our children will be able to marry the person that they love

I broke my silence when my loving partner died in 2005 from metastatic cancer. We had never disclosed our relationship to family, straight friends, or co-workers and suddenly I was faced with her death, the person I loved with all my being. I wanted everyone: relatives, neighbors, anyone who wondered, thought, didn’t think, surmised, didn’t surmise, to know this was the woman I loved. And yes - we were same-sex partners. It was as if the love and joy that could not be publicly expressed at the beginning of our relationship had to be shouted out on the occasion of death in that relationship.

I became vocal about gay and lesbian rights after Char’s death. It began upon discovering, in the settling of our estate, that I would be subjected to the same inheritance tax levied against a friend or virtual stranger. I was aggrieved that in Pennsylvania same-sex partners do not have the same estate rights as those enjoyed by married persons whose assets pass between them with zero inheritance tax. My having to pay 15% on half of all our joint assets, everything we worked for, including the contents of our home, was an outrage to me and an injustice of constitutional proportion

My partner, Charlene, was shy and reticent and treaded softly. On the other hand, I would often rant and rave about the social injustices and the ugly schism that exists in our country because so many of us are continually seduced by mainstream culture. That dominant culture doesn’t need protection, they are the majority, they are denied nothing. We who are the minority suffer discrimination. I find it ironic that our political and religious leaders decry the Taliban practices while here in Pennsylvania there are many of us who experience devastating discrimination and are denied legal rights that are granted to spouses. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for freedom for those people and we are losing the battle in our own backyard where practices and customs are more and more judged and sanctioned by religious laws rather than civil laws.

Arguments erupt over the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance while the pledge itself is meaningless for failure to insure “justice for all.” We are in armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan but even if we were not, there can be no peace in a society that does not serve justice and equality to all its citizens.

In the fall of 1996, while raking leaves, the young teenager next door along with three other friends hissed a very intimidating “lezzie, lezzie, lezzie” at us. Our hearts froze, gripped with fear as they continued to sneer and hiss their “lezzie, lezzie.” Little did we know that what seemed like a long embarrassing moment would turn out to be the longest agonizing summer of our lives.

The next day we awakened to wheel ruts in our front yard. The following week, while taking our usual two-mile hike, we were confronted with shrieks of “lesbian, lesbian.” We never walked again that summer, and fearing our home might be vandalized, we had a security system installed which cost us $2,500, an expensive expenditure because of discrimination

As I have already stated, Char and I lived in the “closet.” This may not sound like a hardship, but it is a very repressive way to live. Think of your own relationships. Imagine how you would feel if you could never disclose the person you live with as your spouse; or when speaking to friends and co-workers you had to provide edited versions of how and with whom you socialized; or make sure you never slipped into the use of an endearing term or affectionate gesture. All of this in order to protect ourselves from being identified so as to avoid discrimination in a society that champions human rights. This is not only hypocrisy, this is tyranny. Char worked for a Catholic institution and I was a teacher in the public school system. We were always fearful of job loss should our sexual orientation be publicly discovered. To live a compartmentalized, covert life is oppressive.

Good legislators insure that the Commonwealth Constitution protects minority constituents. On the other hand, those legislators who promote the Marriage Protection Amendment are the very legislators who discriminate against gays and lesbians. Discrimination is always demeaning; this kind of human debasement gives license to abuse. Char and I knew it and lived it. Sadly, it was not until we were faced with terminal illness and the reality of death that we were freed from our fear. When Char’s cancer advanced to a stage four, there was little need to remain silent. Upon her death I publicly disclosed our relationship in her obituary as her loving partner of 35 years.

The bill was tabled on Tuesday, May 7, in the Senate. Please call your local State Representative and ask him/her to oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Doris T. Cipolla