|
For Immediate
Release
6/13/06
CONTACT:
Senate Republican Communications
(717) 787-6725
Committee
Approves Marriage Bill
Constitutional
Amendment Would Define Bond "Between a Man and a Woman"
HARRISBURG -- The
Senate Judiciary Committee today set the stage for a vote by the full Senate on
a bill providing for an amendment to the state constitution to define marriage
as a covenant between one man and one woman, according to Senator Bob Regola,
R-39th District and prime sponsor of the Senate version of the measure.
With the
Judiciary Committee's approval of House Bill 2381, sponsored by Representative
Scott Boyd, R-43rd District, the measure is headed to the full Senate for
consideration. HB 2381 is similar to Senate Bill 1084, introduced by Senator
Regola.
"I am pleased
that the Committee reported out House Bill 2381," Senator Regola said. "This
represents the first step in the process of enacting a constitutional amendment
to protect the sanctity of marriage in our great Commonwealth by clearly
defining marriage as the bond between one man and one woman."
Senator Regola
said he became interested in promoting the constitutional amendment while
campaigning for office and meeting with the people of his district in
Westmoreland County.
"When I ran for
the Senate, I made a commitment to the people of the 39th Senatorial District to
uphold the sanctity of marriage in Pennsylvania," Senator Regola said. "The
overwhelming majority of the people I talked to agreed with me that marriage is
the union of a man and a woman and that it holds a sacred place in our society."
Pennsylvania
already has a law on the books defining marriage. However, Senator Regola
cautioned, the language of statutes may be eroded or even eliminated by the
courts or the actions of other political jurisdictions.
"Municipal
officials and courts in California, Massachusetts and other areas have stretched
or even shredded the traditional definition of marriage. The basic problem is
that, as we have seen, any law can be overturned at any time," Senator Regola
said. "Because these laws are so tenuous, a number of states have already
ratified similar constitutional amendments and it is time that Pennsylvanians
have the same opportunity to decide whether the traditional definition of
marriage deserves constitutional protection."
 
 Print this page
 E-mail
this page
|
