Pennsylvania Voters Evenly Divided on Marriage Equality

The rapidly expanding acceptance of LGBTs in American society is not confined to the coasts or big cities, and the day may be coming when the trend of voter-approved discriminatory amendments to state constitutions face a tidal wave of reversals.

The latest indication of this comes from Pennsylvania, which some see as an anomaly among East Coast states in terms of its conservatism. But conservative does not always mean hostile to GLBT equality, and a new Franklin & Marshall College poll shows that half of Pennsylvania voters -- exactly 50% -- are supportive of the idea of an amendment to the state constitution that would enshrine marriage equality in Pennsylvania's bedrock law.

An even greater portion of voters, 62 percent, favors civil unions, local newspaper the Scranton Times-Tribune reported on Sept. 1.

Of the 50 per cent of those polled who said they would favor a pro-marriage equality constitutional amendment, 33 percent "strongly favored" the idea, while an additional 17 percent "somewhat favored" such an amendment. 8 percent didn't know, and 5 percent were "somewhat opposed."

The hardcore anti-gay side of the question, those "strongly opposed," weighed in at 37 percent of the total response.

"That represents a sharp shift since June 2009, the last time F&M asked about same-sex marriage," the newspaper reported. "Back then, the results were almost exactly reversed, with a majority, 52 percent, opposed to the legalization amendment and only about two-fifths, 42 percent, in favor.

"On civil unions, 58 percent were in favor in 2009, while only 42 percent were in favor in February 2004, an era when same-sex marriage played a key role in the presidential election that year," the article continued.

"I think there's a big change going on with this," poll director G. Terry Madonna told the newspaper. "In the next generation, it's going to be widely accepted."

"I think it means Pennsylvania is just a reflection of the rest of the country," Equality Pennsylvania head Ted Martin said. "People have realized that same-sex relationships or marriages do not constitute the dire threat to society that those who oppose them would like to say."

Added Martin, "Pennsylvanians, by and large, like the rest of the country, are very fair."

But even as the new poll shows that Pennsylvania's stance on marriage equality for gay and lesbian families in shifting rapidly along with the rest of the country, politicians in the state have been as slow to respond to social chance as have lawmakers in many other places. The article noted that a bill before the General Assembly would write anti-gay discrimination into the state constitution in the form of an amendment that denies marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Anti-gay activists responded to the poll with boilerplate denunciations. The Pennsylvania Family Institute's Thomas Shaheen characterized developments in Massachusetts following the first legal same-sex marriages in the nation as infringements of religious liberty, pointing to a Catholic charitable organization's withdrawal of adoption services once gay and lesbian families became legally recognized entities that could not be denied under law.

Shaheen also suggested that the state was dragged into marriage equality over the objections of its citizens, saying that lawmakers "were trying to use the hammer of public policy to force acceptance" of gay and lesbian families.

Shaheen also bashed civil unions, saying that in the case of New Jersey, where civil unions were touted as the legal equivalent of marriage, over one thousand laws had to be adjusted to become applicable to same-sex couples. Such an argument in itself could be used by proponents of full-fledged marriage equality, since a vast number of rights, protections, and obligations automatically come into force when a couple weds.

Shaheen went on to cite another talking point from the anti-gay perspective, saying that children would suffer if marriage equality were to be approved, and shrugging off the legal format of civil marriage as a contract between two individuals who have decided to solemnize their relationship in a public manner.

"It's not about whether two people are in love," Shaheen asserted. "It's about government endorsing and licensing a particular arrangement between a man and a woman because of its benefit to society and that hasn't changed.

"Attitudes have changed, but I do think that most people understand that there is a difference between marriage between two people, a man and a woman, and two men or two women. Most people recognize that it's not the best thing for children [if two people of the same gender marry]."

Shaheen did not address childlessness among either single-sex or mixed-gender couples.

But Martin fired back, denouncing the claim that children do not fare as well with two parents of the same gender as they do with parents of opposite genders.

"To be perfectly frank, there are no reputable studies," Martine noted, "that prove the point they're trying to make that this is harmful to children." Indeed, Martin added, "The studies that have been issued ... show that the children of gay couples develop the same as the children of opposite sex parents."

Moreover, studies cited by marriage equality foes that indicate that children do not fare well without two parents do not address same-sex families at all. They report on the effects of single parenting, generally by heterosexual woman.

The Philadelphia Inquirer noted in a Sept. 1 article that Pennsylvania has "long [been] viewed as an East Coast bastion of blue-collar social conservatism," making the new poll's results all the more remarkable.

Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal told the Inquirer that he had foreseen the eventual result of growing acceptance years ago, based on trends in polling data.

"The gay-rights movement is a movement of education," Segal noted.

The Inquirer article reiterated a basic truism for social change: That the young, in this case as in previous shifts, are leading the way.

"Senior citizens grew up in a time when homosexuality was still taboo and the vast majority of gays kept their lifestyle in the closet, while most people under 30 have grown up in an environment in which gay people are open and better accepted," the Inquirer article said.

"In 30 years, this won't be an issue," Madonna told the Inquirer. "[The next generation] won't care about it."

Currently, 31 states have amendments banning marriage equality for gay and lesbian families. A handful of other states may put similar ballot questions before voters in 2012. North Carolina lawmakers are currently considering just such a ballot initiative.

One state where voters will definitely have the chance to vote on the personal and family rights of their fellow citizens is Minnesota, but equality activists, who are keyed into the changing political climate, hold out hope that Minnesota might make history by voting down the amendment -- possibly marking the start of a reversal that could eventually see anti-family amendments repealed across the country in due course.