There is simply no denying the importance and benefits of traditional marriage, and that is why I am one of a core group of legislators who have joined together to promote House Bill 2381, the Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment. This legislation, if passed in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature, would give Pennsylvanians the opportunity through voter referendum to amend the constitution to include a provision containing the following language:

		State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from Butler, represents the 12th Legislative District (www.repmetcalfe.com).

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this commonwealth, and neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals."

During the 2004 presidential election, voters in 11 states considered constitutional marriage amendment ballot initiatives. The result was overwhelming support for traditional marriage, as the measures, which clearly stated that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, were approved in every state. Eight of the 11 states approved stronger language, further disallowing for civil unions and other relationships that are similar to or approximate marriage; the remaining three only considered definition of marriage language.

Voters in 19 states have passed marriage-protection amendments: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah.

Throughout history and all over the world, marriage has been considered one of the most foundational building blocks of society. Marriage joins together one man and one woman, who are the natural complement of each other, for the purpose of creating and raising future generations. Marriage enables people to live healthier, longer and more productive lives. Married couples have better emotional and physical health, less depression, lower annual death rates, suffer less domestic violence and have higher income and more financial assets.

Additionally, marriage benefits the children who result from it. Kids need the benefit of a mother and a father -- a male and a female influence -- to become productive members of society who understand the gender roles they will ultimately play.

Unfortunately, homosexual activists have put forth many distortions and lies about what the Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment would actually do. The reason for adding a definition of marriage to the state constitution is to prevent the courts from redefining marriage without consent of the people through their vote.

Homosexual activists argue that if two people love one another, they should be able to make a lifelong commitment as a basic civil right. But this argument is invalid because the mere presence of love and the desire to commit are not requirements for marriage.

States impose statutory limitations on marriage, including that the parties must be of legal age, or have parental permission, to marry; that they are not currently married; and that their relationship to the person they wish to marry falls outside of a certain level of consanguinity. While every adult theoretically has the ability to marry, not every adult will meet the legal requirements to do so. Marriage is not guaranteed to anyone, even heterosexuals.

Same-sex marriage proponents further allege that the Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment will interfere with the ability of homosexual and unmarried heterosexual individuals to make decisions on behalf of their partners with regard to things like medical care and inheritances. However, House Bill 2381 does not take away any rights currently enjoyed by unmarried opposite-sex or same-sex couples, nor does it provide them with any new rights. These couples will still be able to pursue any legal protection currently available to them, such as a living will, a power of attorney, a last will and testament or a health care proxy for medical decisions. It also does not prohibit employers from being able to extend health-care benefits to cohabiting partners.

Any departure from traditional marriage will open up the possibility of all kinds of variation on marriage. Then, we will have to ask, where do we draw the line? Will we allow group marriages? How about marriage between brother and sister? Will minors be allowed to marry without parental consent?

The Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment does not outlaw homosexuality or cohabitation. Homosexual and unmarried heterosexual individuals will still have the freedom to form relationships as they so choose. But they should not have the freedom to redefine the institution of marriage for everyone. The constitutional amendment process puts the responsibility for defining marriage into the hands of voters -- they will decide, through referendum, how to define marriage.