Michael Brubaker

The state senator who wanted to (further) ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania.

by Tom Namako

Early this month, the state Senate tabled (read: killed) a bill that would have amended Pennsylvania's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman (gay marriage is already not recognized here). Still, City Paper wanted to hear what the bill's main sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker (R—Lancaster) was thinking. We caught up with him and grilled him for two minutes.

City Paper: What are you trying to do here?

Michael Brubaker: If we redefine marriage, we have two choices: people voting at the ballot box at a referendum, or, if people desire, the definition can be changed through the judicial system. [This bill] says that if anything is going to change, why not have two years of healthy civil debate about it?

CP: If the idea of healthy debate is so important here, why not have a hearing in Philadelphia, where there's a large gay community? Why only in Harrisburg and Pittsburgh?

MB: Oh, the [Judiciary] Committee made that decision.

CP: Did you speak up and say, "Maybe we should have one in Philly?"

MB: No, I didn't speak up, but I'm supportive of a public hearing. I'm happy to go and listen to any conversation.

CP: Are there any religious motivations to your proposing this bill?

MB: No, I've never cited any biblical texts.

CP: Do you feel as though a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple should have unequal rights?

MB: I've got to think about that one. [20 seconds of silence] ... Marriage is a contract strictly between one man and one woman in a significant part of the world today. And this commonwealth does permit domestic partnerships and life partners in addition to what is called traditional marriage. Each of those is a separate and unique relationship.

CP: But not the same relationship. Marriage and partnerships aren't equal. So, you think a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple should have unequal rights?

MB: In regards to what?

CP: Marriage.

MB: [The bill] doesn't change the existing framework of the law ... I don't see it as discriminatory, this current set of laws.

CP: I don't think that answers the question.

MB: Traditional marriage is open currently to heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples are open to domestic partnership. They are two separate contracts.

CP: Right. They're not the same thing. They're unequal rights, aren't they?

MB: I'm sorry, I have to run.