Detriments of Regressive Taxation

“Last night I spoke on the House floor against the proposed cigarette tax increase. My full comments are available below. Hardworking Philadelphians and those visiting the city should not have to pay more and have those tax dollars funneled to the teacher union coffers. I will continue to oppose any and all tax increases. The government takes too much of our hard earned money already.” ~ Representative Daryl Metcalfe

Hallelujah! Victory for the Hahns, Religious Freedom

Freedom is the Ultimate Winner in Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision

Pennsylvania Family Institute applauds ruling as important First Amendment victory

Liberty in America was affirmed and protected today as the United States Supreme Court sided with advocates for First Amendment freedoms, and rejected government overreach into the lives of those who own and operate businesses.

Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI) congratulates the Hahn Family, old-order Mennonites from Lancaster County and the founders and owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, who challenged the federal government’s contraceptive drug coverage mandate.

“The Hahns made it very clear from the start being forced to provide employee coverage for drugs that can cause an abortion would be a severe violation of their religious faith and conscience, (continue reading)

Time is running out for Gov Tom Corbett to stand up for PA law and republican party values

RNC Resolution for Marriage and Children 2013

Whereas, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; and it is based on the relationship that only a man and a woman can form; and

Whereas, support for marriage has been repeatedly affirmed nationally in the 2012 Republican National Platform, through the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (signed into law by President Bill Clinton), and passed by the voters of 41 States including California via Proposition 8 in 2008; and

Whereas, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; and

Whereas, the future of our country is children; it has been proven repeatedly that the most secure and nurturing environment in which to raise healthy well adjusted children is in a home where both mother and father are bound together in a loving marriage; and

Whereas, the U. S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of laws adopted to protect marriage from the unfounded accusation that support for marriage is based only on irrational prejudice against homosexuals; therefore be it

Resolved, the Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America; and be it further

Resolved, the Republican National Committee implores the U. S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California‟s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

As adopted by the Republican National Committee on April 12, 2013.

Wisconsin judge puts same-sex marriages on hold

Published: Friday, Jun. 13, 2014 – 6:42 am
Last Modified: Saturday, Jun. 14, 2014 – 1:49 pm

A federal judge on Friday put same-sex marriages in Wisconsin on hold, a week after she struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional, a move that allowed more than 500 couples to wed over the last eight days.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling Friday means that gay marriages will end while the appeal from Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is pending. Couples who were in the middle of the five-day waiting period to get a license, which most counties waived, are caught in limbo.

Van Hollen requested Crabb put her ruling on hold, arguing that allowing the marriages while the underlying case was pending created confusion about the legality of those marriages.

In her order, Crabb expressed (continue reading)


State Representatives Support Clerk’s Appeal for Marriage

Twenty Republican House members signed a letter addressed to Schuylkill County Register of Wills Theresa Santai-Gaffney supporting her decision to legally intervene against the May 20th decision by U.S. Middle District Court Judge John Jones dismantling the state Defense of Marriage Act.

Last Friday afternoon, Theresa Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphans’ Court of Schuylkill County, filed paperwork to intervene in the case that overturned Pennsylvania’s marriage law. Please  (continue reading)

Metcalfe to Introduce Resolution Calling on Governor to Stand Up for States’ Rights

Metcalfe to Introduce Resolution Calling on Governor to Stand Up for States’ Rights

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania House State Government Committee Majority Chairman, Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), will soon introduce a House resolution officially calling on the Corbett administration to defend Pennsylvania’s state sovereignty by appealing the Whitewood v. Wolf court decision that invalidated Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act.

“This federal court’s blatant and tyrannical usurpation of power is a direct assault on the sovereignty of every current and future law adopted by this Commonwealth,” said Metcalfe. “The governor’s announcement that he does not intend to appeal this judicial activist decision establishes a harmful precedent against the sovereign powers reserved to the states, or we the people, by America’s founders through the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

However, according to Metcalfe, who is also the prime sponsor of a proposed Constitutional amendment (House Bill 1349) that would leave the decision to define marriage completely up to Pennsylvania voters, time is of the essence for the state House to adopt House Resolution 891. There are now fewer than 30 days from the May 20 federal court decision for the governor to reverse his decision and file a notice of appeal.

An excerpt from the resolution reads: “Therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives urge the executive branch participants in the Whitewood case to appeal the decision in order to preserve the right of the citizens of this Commonwealth to exercise their constitutional and historical prerogative to define marriage.”

“Ultimately, any changes to Pennsylvania’s definition of marriage should come as a result of the legislative process (continue reading)