Readers' forum: A possible Legislative ban on same-sex marriages

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

As the first step toward amending the state constitution, the state House voted 136-61 last night for a bill that would outlaw same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages in Pennsylvania. (Read article)

The Post-Gazette invited readers to offer their opinions.

Here are some of the comments:

June 8, 2006

Though I miss my family, thank God I escaped from the troglodytic mindset of so much of Pa. Maine certainly isn't perfect, but there's something about the progressive open-mindedness of the New England states that feels safe and welcoming. No Rick Santorum up here! In fact, both of our US Senators (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) are Republicans, but they both voted against the gay marriage ban today in the US Senate. That's MY kind of Republican!

-- Steve M., South Portland, Maine (formerly of Ohio Township)

The problem with this argument is that it has been turned around to be an "attack on the traditional family and the children". When this issue started out it was for providing rights for same sex couples. All we want is safety and security and to be able to protect the assets that we accumulate over a life time. The GLBT Community has no intention of attacking the "Traditional Family". Who do you think our families are? The problem is the things that we want are unfortunately the very same things that those who are married already get. So unfortunately on our part it is called marriage and everyone in the country is coming up with their own spin to turn the masses against our cause.

GLBT Pennsylvanians work in our communities, pay taxes in our schools and are productive members of society. All we want is the same safety and security that any other Pennsylvanian gets. Pennsylvania was a religiously tolerant community set up for the protection civil liberties and equal rights by the Quaker William Penn. There is no reason that the religious community can be tolerant with other members of the community today and find a compromise to this issue. By the way, even if this amendment passes in two years, the GLBT community will still be here. Gay people will continue to have children (many in a traditional marriage, that ends up in divorce), they will continue to live with their partners and will continue to live in your neighborhoods. What the Pennsylvania Legislature is doing is just appeasing the populous with this propaganda so that they can get re-elected and to get the rest of us all stirred up. We don't need the governments permission to be who we are.

-- Dan Gulasy, Crafton

How smart and effective this piece of legislation turned out to be. I'm furious, and most of the other commentators seem to be furious as well. So it has moved us to action, to condemn this act of bigotry and hatred. I even considered springing to action if the senate took this on in time for the 90 day deadline, maybe launching a campaign to educate the voters about this issue, to change the debate to one of discrimination and government interference v. human rights. But then I realized, this has to pass in two consecutive years. So why would I waste my time, effort and money on trying to convince the people of PA that this is a bigoted (and probably unconstitutional) act? Oh that's right, the legislature is worried that I and my fellow citizens will work to get them thrown out on their butts in November for all of their misdeeds and inaction. Wouldn't it be nice for them if I got caught up fighting this red herring instead of focusing on the upcoming ELECTION. Good work fellows, but it's not going to work. I wont be distracted?even though this whole debate makes me see red. I will continue to make sure that the VOTERS are concentrating on all the things you have not done, the things we all wish you had not done, and the things that still need to be done, not this divisive and hate filled piece of nonsense.

-- Jennifer England, Greenfield

I find this to be an argument over semantics.

The kind of marriage that concerns God is defined by one's faith and the community with whom one worships.

The kind of marriage that concerns government is defined by what's equitable in terms of civil rights and privileges, for example, the ability to file a joint tax return, to have visitation rights as next of kin, or any of over one thousand other legal, secular matters. This has nothing to do with God in any way, shape, or form.

These are two distinct things that intersect in name only, and I think by design of those who seek to confuse. Therefore, call the latter a "civil union" so there is no opportunity for confusion.

I would think conservatives would want to encourage civil unions on two counts. First, they declare a monogamous relationship and therefore promote family values. Second, they distinguish committed relationships from casual ones in the matter of granting domestic partner benefits that most corporations now offer, thereby reducing corporate expenditure.

So while one might legitimately and without bigotry support the long-standing tradition of marriage as defined by their faith, only those whose faith is decidedly weak would consider civil unions as a threat. And only a bigot would use their personal faith as an excuse to insist that our government deny otherwise readily granted civil rights and privileges to a group of people based solely on who they love.

Faith-based discrimination is oxymoronic on its face. Codifying faith-based discrimination in our secular Constitution is beyond the pale.

-- Duane Galensky, Beallsville, Pa.

marriage = one woman and one man

civil unions = two persons

marriage is not equal to any other combinations (two men one woman, two women two men, one man one cat, one women two dogs, etc...)

It's not difficult to understand.

-- Anthony, Kennedy Twp.

For the first time in the history of our beloved nation, our representatives are seeking to amend the Constitution, not to expand liberties, but to restrict them. Passing this amendment sends this nation back fifty years and ignores all of the progress that we have made towards a tolerant and equal society.

There is a great amount of talk regarding Christianity, God, and God's definition of marriage. If it is your belief that God wanted marriage between a man and a woman, that is certainly your prerogative, and I support your right to believe that. However, God must be separated from the law. God must be separated from our Constitution. This is not "removing God" from society as many of you have said and will continue to declare. The law, and our Constitution, is set up to provide equal rights and liberties to all of those citizens living freely in this nation. The law confers certain benefits to those who are married. Thus, to deny homosexuals the right to go before a judge and enter into a legal contract and receive the benefits therewith, not only is bigotry at its purist form, but flies in the face of the true spirit of our constitution.

This country tried long ago to deny marriage to interracial couples. We tried to prevent convicts in prison from marrying. In both instances, the Supreme Court told us that marriage is a fundamental right in this country and it should be denied to no one.

You can put the arguments on the table all night long that you are trying to protect the institution of marriage, the sanctity of the family, protection of the children, etc. They are all nonsense and each one of you knows it. First, the underlying reason behind all of this is your fear and/or hatred of homosexuals. I would respect you more if you could just admit that. At least then you would be taken seriously. Secondly, all the problems that have led to this were not created or made worse by homosexuals. Marriage is in danger because of those who are married and have taken it lightly, and gotten divorced. Plain and simple, when over 50% of the marriages in this country fail, how can one seek to protect marriage by denying it to homosexuals, who have not contributed to the divorce rate whatsoever. Marriage is taken lightly and it destroys it. People having children out of wedlock and one parent defecting is what harms the children. You get my point.

Finally, the most devastating aspect of all this is the ignorance of those fighting against homosexuals. First, most of you probably do not know a homosexual and do not care to. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not contagious or something that can be spread. More and more science is coming out showing the physiological aspect of a homosexual's brain. Most importantly, is how permitting marriage of homosexuals UNDER THE LAW would affect or negatively impact anyone. Never will I, or anyone else, force churches to marry homosexuals. No one is advocating for that. So if two people who love each other whole heartedly and they are to get a marriage certificate from a justice of the peace, how will that affect anyone but those two? They will receive tax benefits and legal rights? So what? My tax dollars go to hundreds of things that I disagree with. Get over it. Finally, they are still going to be gay whether or not they get married. They are going to love and live with each other happily, probably more so than the rest of us, and move on with their lives. You cannot stop homosexuality and permitting them to get married will in no way affect your life.

However, bigotry seems to rule the day. Congratulations, your hatred is going to win. I'll stand before my maker telling Him that I lived without hatred towards any of His creations. Good luck.

-- Matt, Mount Washington

I think the state AND the country should stay out of it. None of this has to do with government -- they should just stay out of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Adele M. Roupp, Jacksonville, Fla.

I want to applaud our state legislature, particularly those Democratic representatives who truly voted with their consciences to make real change. Obviously, stopping men and women from getting benefits if they refuse to -- or are not allowed to -- marry is the first course of action in a bold plan to deal with the gas crisis, the unjust war in Iraq, and the health care crisis. Because if we can't stop people from marrying and won't give non-married people benefits than how can we make sure that they all have health insurance?! Hmm, wait, that doesn't sound right. Okay, I bet it's because gay men and women are using all of our gas and driving up the prices! Or, wait, perhaps it was the common law couples that really incensed Saddam Hussein so that he accumulated all those Weapons of Mass ... Well, maybe I'm just not strategic enough to know why this anti-marriage amendment is going to benefit ordinary Americans -- but I'm sure that the Democrats and Republicans must know best, they're doing a great job so far.

-- Erika F., Pittsburgh

Marriage is a union between a man and woman. That was written in the Bible by the inventor of marriage. Why do people; first, want to force acceptance of a mentally ill sexual perversion as a "life choice", then purposely agitate the rest of society by forcing their desires. If two people want to be gay, I will not accept it as normal. But, I will also not force my beliefs on them. However, why do liberals always have a way of attacking anything that has a strand of morality?

-- Aaron, Beaver (by way of Fallujah, Iraq)

It is abhorent that the politicians of this state are willing to define our state constitution so as to exclude people from joining in what is essentially a legal and binding contract. Religion should not be involved in deciding what is or what is not a legal union between two people. Let those that wish to enter into this union decide which sex they wish to marry. Defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is for churches to decide and not our constitution. I think that most religions have a lousy track record for deciding what is best for everyone. If you don't think so....look at the Middle East or anywhere that religious tenets are the basis for lawmaking. Is this America or Iran? This is the 21st century and the Pennsylvania House just passed a proposed state constitutional amendment that reeks of the the middle ages. The Puritans would be very proud of them. This is not a church state. Keep religion out of government and politics. Bush, Santorum and all the other pretentious snots that think they know what's good for everyone else should look hard at the Arab states where religious (so-called) clerics make the laws. They wouldn't last a minute in a religious state. They'd all have your hands cut off (or worse) and be thrown into prison...where they all belong. Democrats that voted for this amendment have shown themselves to be as mean-spirited and contemptible as Republicans. We will remember this vote and campaign against these self-righteous Christians. They do not representing everyone when they vote to exclude some constituents from having the same rights as others. This is inherently wrong and if they don't see that then they aren't fit to be American citizens let alone hold their respective political office. -- Sandy Sweetland, New Kensington

We seem to believe that marriage somehow makes people better and more responsible citizens. If this is true for heterosexuals, why would it not be true for homosexuals as well?

I remain bewildered by the notion that somehow same sex unions threaten "traditional" marriage. I have yet to hear anyone explain what possible harm it does. The truth is that the opposition is based simply on an emotional feeling of "I don't like what you are doing."

That is hardly ground for amending the fundamental law of Pennsylvania.

-- David Lawrence, Pittsburgh

What is more harmful to marriage and the welfare of your children? You cheating on your wife or you divorcing your husband leaving your children in a split household, or the gay couple down the street getting married?

Let's call this what this really is. The first step in getting rid of the gays and playing election year scare politics.

Since politicians seem to want to intrude into our personal lives and our bedroom, I think it's time we start asking questions about theirs. Let's start asking any member of our legislation who has been divorced why THEY don't believe in traditional marriage. Call them and ask them if they have ever committed adultery.

Don't let politicins scare you into thinking the gays are taking over because it's an election year. You are better than that Pennsylvania. Ask yourself this; if they cared so much about this issue, why did they wait till the middle of an election cycle to bring this up?

-- Scott Senay, McKeesport

I think it is a tragedy that such an amendment is needed, but recent Federal court decisions that attack State attempts to deal with issue demand action by the Senate, and by the States.

I have seen several comments recently stating that the government should stay out of peoples bedrooms, and I agree. Anyone being intellectually honest would also have to agree that this amendment in no way limits or proscribes private behavior between consenting adults.

I also support civil unions, and neither House Bill 2381 or the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment prohibits them. I believe that most Americans would support extending the same LEGAL protections to gay couples that married heterosexual couples currently enjoy.

My objection to gay "marriage" lies not in the behavior of gays, but in the way adoption of that terminology would distort and diminish the meaning of the word marriage, in a vain attempt by some to achieve moral parity. Gay couples CANNOT elevate their social status merely by changing the definition of a word. By diluting the meaning of the word marriage they will poison it, and it will NOT confer the moral equivalence that is desired. Ultimately, people will adopt new terms that distinguish between hetero and gay relationships, because the ability to pro-create is CENTRAL to the propagation of the species and society. The negative connotations they seek to escape are attached to their public behavior, not to any word. While it is true not all hetero couples produce children, it is also true that no other combination is capable of pro-creation.

Many examples of distorting the language are possible, but I will share one: Years ago people with physical defects were referred to as "crippled." That word was perfectly accurate and descriptive, but it eventually grew to carry a negative connotation, so we switched to the word "handicapped." (Remember the "Hire the Handicapped" campaign?) Now that word is out of favor, so we refer to the "disabled" or the "physically challenged." The problem lies not in the words, but in the instinctive and emotional reactions within the minds of the people who hear them.

"Marriage" has been understood to mean one man and one woman for thousands of years. Who are we in the year 2006 to decide that definition must be changed?

-- Jay Silla, Pittsburgh

I do not agree with same-sex marriages regardless of religious or other values. The organizations that support these need to re-examine their values and what they support and stand for. As for the ACLU supporting and backing this type of marriage. They need to concentrate on more importand thaings such as getting the american values back on line in stead of trying to destroy the values that have held America together from our beginning as a country.

-- Richard Trembath, born and raised in Irwin

Well, it's much easier to pass a bill that solves no problems than to deal with the pressing issues facing Pennsylvania: How to support our schools in a fair and equitable way, reduce our over-lesgislature before we bankrupt the state, how to bring good jobs and sustainable lifestyles to our state to keep more of our young people who want to stay, how to deal with the growing health care crisis ... the list goes on.

If you think that passing this law is needed to protect heterosexual marriage, then you don't have much faith in that institution. Let the religions do what they want but let civil relationships be available to every responsible adult so that families and relationships can be supported and maintained.

-- Marcia Smith, Wilkinsburg

I believe that "marriage" should remain between a man and a woman. Having said that, homosexuals should be able to receive similar legal benefits as heterosexuals, especially medical benefits, through some sort of a civil union.

-- Christopher Slagle, Upper St. Clair

I ask this one question and propose this one and only thought into the minds of Pennsylvanians. How does the happiness of gay couple living in, say, Squirrel Hill, effect the happiness of a straight couple living in Mt. Lebanon? The only correct answer: it doesn't! Live and let live! These right wing bigots are trying to create some kind of belief that if gay marriage is legalized that the families will be hurt or "the sky will fall", etc etc. A dear friend of mine recently called me from Boston where it was cloudy -- so tell me another one, Religious Right. The ending of reglious-based descrimination in this country is long over-due! You want to protect a form of marriage that, currently, has a near-50% divorce rate. There have even been studies to show that Gay Marriage in Massachusetts has made gays there "more monogamous" and there haven't been any negative backlashes in that state as a result of the 2004 ruling.

In the past three years, there have been 5 weddings in my family. And I couldnt help, while sitting those pews, think to myself, "you know, I'd really love to be able to do this myself someday."

But because of the evils of organized religions, that may never happen...

In closing, I have 5 words that every Pennsylvanian needs to drill into their mind before this upcoming election...

Sanitize The Senate: REMOVE SANTORUM!

-- Jonathan Graff, McMurray

I was also raised Roman Catholic, but have become educated, albeit briefly, on other religions.

That being said, I cannot fathom how anybody feels that a union between a man and a women can be threatened by two individuals of the same sex legally uniting under the law. How will men and women be discouraged from uniting in marriage? How will their legal rights diminish because same-sex couples are recognized? Where is this threat?

Certainly all these Senators are not bigots and certainly all these people are not. Right? Furthermore, when did any one group "own" marriage? Maybe in your religion it defined it one way, but you do know there are other religions and many who don't recognize religion. As far as I have read, it is a legal matter.

Furthermore, it is a shame and should be embarrassing to those who think same-sex people are lesser, are lower on the class scale, and that they don't deserve the same rights or as those of us who are heterosexual. Maybe its the same fear the government has fed us since 9-11.

As a married heterosexual man I certainly do not feel threated in any way, shape, or form and stand by anyone who would like the right to marry. -- Adam Mihlfried, McCandless

Typical PA politics (much ado about nothing). How about focusing on job creation instead of beating up on gays?

-- Paul Vescio

I am totally opposed to same sex "marriages". I have no problem with people who wish to live together. Whatever people do in their own homes is their own business. I have a daughter and I want her to grow up to understand what marriage is: to live under God with a man with vows as partners and to have children and to raise them together.

-- Jeff Dumm

To the obviously misinformed woman in Hopewell who commented that "This country has gone down hill ever since they took religion out of schools and our children have no basis for whats right or wrong. They are pulled in every direction or none at all.", my suggestion to you is to STOP ALLOWING THE SCHOOLS TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN!!! Schools are not meant to babysit your children, they are meant to E-D-U-C-A-T-E; be THE parent!

For the lunatic-fringe out there, it is not gay marriage that threatens the moral fabric of America and heterosexual marriage, it is DIVORCE. I wander how many sinners out there are taking communion on Sundays while knowing that their marriage WAS NOT annulled (less than 5% are granted an annullment). You truly want the big guy upstairs to be impressed? Outlaw Adultery and Divorces ... make that a crime. Than again most of you hypocrites out there would than be clogging up our prison system and who would the republicans turn to for the votes that they need year in and year out?

This bunch of political yahoos is the worst that I have seen in my 40 years on this earth.

Let's send them ALL home this NovemberLincoln is turning over in his grave over these "Republicans" L

-- Christopher Luccaterro, Upper St. Clair

For crying out loud, if you don't like gay marriages, don't get one! The world will not end by allowing two consenting adults who love one another to get married, even if they are of the same gender. Love is love.

It's not like straights haven't already made a mockery of the so-called sanctity of marriage. Why shouldn't gays get a shot at it too? -- Kat S. Allison Park

As a happily married heterosexual, I think it's such a shame to push for a constitutional amendment that takes away rights, rather than granting them. This all seems to be based on Christian values and beliefs (and how some decide to interpret the Bible). If this is the case, then it's a clear contradiction of the 1st amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Although, this begs the question of the definition of religion (rather than the definition of marriage). What is a religion? There are so many out there from Christianity to Islam to Scientology. They all have such different roots and beliefs. Luckly, we live in the United States of America where according to the first amendment, we have the right to practice (or not practice) whatever religion we choose. If the religion that you choose condones gay marriages, then so be it! Not everyone in this country follows the beat of one religious drum. It's time to seperate religion from government and people need to keep thier nose out of other people's business! -- Glenn Csonka, North Huntingdon

This country has major problems: a poorly managed war in Iraq, delqlining wages, illegal immigration, huge national debt, scandles on capital hill, real estate foreclosures, health care, etc. We are sitting here talking about gay marriage? The right wing needs to get it's priorites straight.

-- Michael Young, Crafton

I, for one, would like to know which part of our country's and/or our state's governing laws permit so-called Christians to force their "morals" on the rest of us. Last I checked, the separation of church and state allows me to choose which morals I choose to live my life by. I would also like to know which part of the laws permit such flagrant discrimination against citizens of this country. Who are we to tell someone who them may love and who they may choose to live their life with?

-- Amy S., Pittsburgh

I've tried very hard not to feel highly insulted by people saying that families are defined as man-woman only, when we KNOW that families come in all varieties. To say otherwise is simply to ignore reality! I've also tried very hard to keep from being offended by the diatribe about "marriage" that is really another way to say "we hate queers." Really! Let's call a spade a spade! It's the same thing as being "upset about the border problem" when what is really on display is our good ol' American hatred, this time directed at Hispanics. And all of it resting on the bible, no less. Can these people really think we don't see the bigotry!? Does today's Christian equal hatemonger? It just makes my heart sad that there is so much hatred being spewed out by people who supposedly follow Christ's teachings. Why are they so threatened? Can they be that insecure in their own sexuality?

-- Wendy S. Bell, Bridgeville, PA

I am in favor of an amendment banning same sex marriages.

-- George Irwin, Monroeville

Jon Stewart said it best when he hosted Bill Bennett on the Daily Show last night, after Bennett claimed this was a debate about protecting the sanctity of the male-female union. Stewart retorted, "I disagree. I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."

Indeed, to maintain a stance against the civil rights of gay Americans, you must:

a) Believe that there is no such thing as a gay person, and instead believe that he or she is just a straight person who does gay things, as if homosexuality were some type of fetish.

b) Accept that some people are, inherently, gay -- but also believe these people to be subhuman, and thus unqualified for such human rights.

The "family" argument they're clinging to these days (to avoid admitting they hold either of the beliefs I listed above) is quite ironic, given that the people hurt most by these actions are the children of gay families.

Sorry, Timmy, but the State doesn't approve of your parents' relationship. Too bad for you.

-- Adam Atkinson, Pittsburgh

So now what, are we going to redefine what love is? Why is it are right to dictate what love is, and if in love why can two people not get married? I grew up in a small town that feared change, such as the idea of gay marriages, let alone gay couples even exist, like most people fear a terrorist attack, one of the reasons why I moved to a bigger city was because I thought most other people have evolved. And although I do see the side of religion, which says marriage is between a man and a woman, why should we care what people do in the privacy of there own home. "Children need moms and dads" says Tom Yewcic how many people grew up in a single parent home and yet are still very good members of society? Are we saying that they are unfit to care for a child, well if this is this is true what is next, are they still smart enough to vote? Run for a public office? If one right is taken away then what is the stopping point, were does the idea that these people are free lose its meaning. Why is it we see it as are right to say what others can and cannot do, when in no way is there a harmful effect.

-- Stephen, Pittsburgh

June 7, 2006

I believe in the teachings of the Christian faith, that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

-- Ron Saxe, Everett

To me, marriage should be man and woman. I am happy that they took this stand. Since they are taking God out of mostly everything else, at least God's definition of marriage is still sacred.

-- Tabitha, Dunbar

You can tell it's an election year--where their jobs are up for grabs and they're worried about it. So just like the president, they are trying to divert voters' attention from truly important issues. Like sneaky, middle-of-the-night (and unconstitutional) pay raises.

-- Sandie B., Oil City

Dear Post-Gazette:

So our upstanding state representatives want to "protect traditional families" and ensure children have a mother and a father to raise them? Here are three steps that would do a lot more to further the above causes than outlawing gay and polygamous marriages:

1) Bring back the stigma and hardship of bearing children out of wedlock by ending all benefits to children (and parents) who are illegitimate. How can certain legislators say with a straight face "it takes a mother and a father to raise a child" while condoning and encouraging out of wedlock births through subsidies and payments?

2) Prosecute the fathers of all children born to underage mothers, not only for child support, but for statutory rape. Perhaps men would think twice about walking away from the families they create if they know they face jail time for doing so. All mothers would have to name the father, or list the suspected fathers, before receiving the child's birth certificate.

3) Ban divorce to all couples of minor children except in the cases of the three A's: abandonment, abuse, and adultery. I see a lot more harm done to the "traditional family" and children by parents who selfishly divorce to follow their own whims, rather than do what is best for their children.

But, alas, it is far easier to blame scapegoats for all that is wrong with the world than it is to take concrete steps to change it -- the harm being done to "traditional families" is being overwhelmingly perpetuated by heterosexuals, married or not. The three steps outlined above would be a lot harder to stomach, both politically and socially, than blaming gays and other non-traditionalists. As for the religious aspect some insist on bringing in to the matter, one would think Pennsylvania would act to ban civil ceremonies if religion is so important to a marriage!

If I was any more cynical than I already am, I would think our state legislators contrived to make this the talked-about issue over the summer recess, rather than the pay raise. They are running scared in Harrisburg, and for good reason. Please don't let our government use this non-issue to hide the real problems facing us this upcoming election.

-- Melody Fohr, Homestead

Marriage, in its most basic form, is simply a contract between two people. Allowing homosexuals to codify their relationship in the form of a contract does not dilute the relationship between heterosexual couples at all. Only by injecting religious prejudices into the mix does homosexual marriage become a threat.

The Republican Party is misguided in its attempt to become the political weapon of organized religion. It is imperative that Republicans reclaim this party from the Religious Right.

-- Amesh Adalja, Butler

It really shouldn't be up to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to block same sex marriages. A marriage is a legal contract between two individuals and frankly thats all it is. The contract simply joins the two co sighners property and wealth. A marriage does nothing more than that then in the eyes of the state. To proclaim two people can not enter a contract simply because the state wouldn't like the type of contract entered into is discriminatory in nature. A relegion can bar same sex marriages but a state really cannot. In fact it is frankly a shame that such a law would be passed in our State when it historically has been one in which the constatution was the first to allow free relegion and outlaw slavery.

-- Alexandria Sotack, Hazleton

Again, the minority gets their way over the majority because of advocacy groups.

Who really cares? Some 70-year-old bible thumping grandma/grandpa couple?

We live in a world where everytime you turn on the news you see gruesome pics of a car bombings / killings / natural disasters, etc. ... So much, that I make sure my 10-year-old daughter does not watch the 1st 15 minutes of a news show.

Bottom line is that even non gay requires a lot of "work" every day to have a succesful marriage. If two people find someone they are truely compatibale with -- whether man/woman; man/man; woman/woman; dog/cat (you get my point), then let them get married.

Has anyone against gay marriage even looked at the divorce ratio over the last 15 years on new marraiges. Hell, if they did, they might be against marriage all together!!

Quit making this a political or religious news item. It is not. it is about personal choice. Let's quit trying to prevent this and worry about preventing car bombings / killings, etc. ... so I can let my daughter watch an entire version of the news.

-- Chris Vidovich, Washington, Pa.

I think it's truly sad. How much more of our freedoms do we allow the government to take from us? Why is it even an issue? I have gay friends and family members. They pay their taxes, keep homes, love their families, vote,work- do all the things that makes for a good citizen. Who gets hurt if gay people marry? No one. Our taxes won't go up, gas won't be any cheaper, the Steelers will still be tops- the earth will still revolve on it's axis. This is much to do about nothing. No one gets hurt. And it certainly won't make your average Bible-thumping losers any more so-called Christian. They will find some other target for their hatred and contempt all the while gossiping and pointing their fingers at others. The real Christians of the world will still be loving and supporting of their friends and family who were born gay. Grow up, world! No one "turns" gay. Save your outrage for real problems like poverty and world hunger.

-- Pamela McKlveen, Derry

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already.

I just have a simple idea for those who are against same sex marriage.

Have you considered for even a minute, what it might be like for a group of strangers who don't even know you to pass judgment on your family, have you ever thought for a minute what it might be like to be on the other side of this, to watch as the government of your state takes away your hopes and dreams of you and your future children?

Maybe, if all of you who are so opposed to the scary homo's getting some equality could just a moment to realize that we have feelings and family's too and that we just want the same safeguards for our spouses and children that you have.

Why is it so hard to understand that?

How dare you pass judgment on my family. We live the same way you do, we work, we cut the grass, we make dinner, spend time with our family's, grocery shop, kiss the skinned knees of our children, help them with their homework, push them on their swing set, go to their T-ball games, take them to dance class, heck believe it or not, for what ever reason some of us even go to church. **gasp**

Our family is no different than your family, EXCEPT, if something happens to myself or my partner we can not have the piece of mind of knowing that the person we have loved for 50 years, the children we have raised, the work we have done our entire lives to keep our family strong will have any protection what so ever.

Thanks for having such a huge impact on my life. My only wish for you is a litter of gay children and grandchildren, maybe then you will see how much hatred and lack of understand hurts!

-- Christie S. Jeannette

As far as a ban on gay marriage, I don't have an opinion either way. Each to their own. What I do have an opinion on is that I can't even imagine, or want to, how much time and tax payers money is being wasted on this issue at both the state and federal level. I can think of many more issues of much greater importance that need the attention and money. A few that come to mind are education , health care issues, helping New Orleans, security issues, and working on the international mess we are in. I think these government officials need to get out of our personal and private lives, quite forcing their values down our throats and get on with the real issues at hand! Where is the separation of church and state and quite wasting our hard earned dollars on this nonsense. By the way, for the record, I am a married female (to a man) with children.

-- Suzie, Indiana, Pa.

Bravo to our state House. Now if Washington will do the same.

-- Marie F., United Kingdom

This is unfortunately larger and more insidious than whether one's personal beliefs allow for same-sex marriage or not. The question at hand involves whether we permit our elected officials to use the highest law in our state as a tool of institutional discrimination and political gain. To my aboslute astonishment and deep disappointment, the question has been answered.

My only consolation in this matter is that my local representative, Paul Costa, showed courage and conscience with his vote against HB 2381. Thank you, Sir ... I salute you.

I grieve today not just for my friends and neighbors who will be adversely affected by this measure, but for all of us because we've all lost something today. The Declaration of Independence does not read, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but only if you're married and heterosexual;" the Pledge of Allegiance does not read, "with liberty and justice for some." The role of a constitution has been, is and always should be to guarantee rights, not to remove them. That founding concept was subverted today, and for what?

Some folks here have talked of moral degradation in our society. I agree: look at the crime and poverty rates, look at the divorce rate among heterosexual couples, notice the American Idol contestant getting more votes than any US Presidential candidate in history. Punishing one small group for these conditions without everyone taking stock of their own lives and beliefs is both disengenuous and unfair. Forcing religion-based moral requirements onto the population at large is also unfair, and historically, has never worked ... remember Prohibition and the ban on interracial marriage? So, what should we do now? How about actually addressing the issues behind said moral decay? How about refusing to buy into the climate of fear that's trickling down from our highest levels? How about putting more of our collective energies into the needs of our communities?

Others here have talked about their fear that pro-gay-marriage-people are forcing their "gay agenda" down the throats of God-fearing Pennsylvanians. There was already a law in Pennsylvania "protecting marriage," before 2381 passed. This constitutional measure was unnecessary, and as far as some of you are concerned, succeeded in presenting a diversion to several other areas where our government is failing us. Please don't allow yourselves to be manipulated by the politics of hate and fear, because nobody wants to take away the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples.

This measure passed for two reasons: bigotry and apathy. In the end, it won't be lack of morality that kills this country ... it will be our lack of compassion and our lack of civic-minded action.

-- Heidi McDonald, Edgewood Borough Council Member

There is always a big debate about the separation between church and state. It is unfair that lawmakers can decide when and where the separation lies. This is the most discriminatory act I've seen in my lifetime. I hope that behind this vote of personal opinion that there we be a greater effort to clean up the inner city streets and crack down on drugs and violence those are some of the real issue that the lawmakers should be dealing with. The Pa. House needs to worry about what goes on outside and less about what goes on in the people that pay their salaries personal lives.

-- Lesonia Witherspoon

I got married less than two weeks ago! What a happy and joyous occasion it was! Sadly, I had to leave my own state and country to do so.

My partner and I got married in Toronto, Canada because it was our desire to consecrate our relationship in front of family and friends in a place where we are not considered second class citizens and where our marriage was and still is valid and legal. As we left Toronto city hall, marriage license in hand, I did not notice heterosexual couples on the street around me racing from the side of their loved ones and instantly seeking out same-sex partners. I did not see a hurricane suddenly sweep through the "pagan" city and destroy it. I did not notice the collapse of society happening all around me. In fact, surprisingly, life seemed to go on as normal -- except for my parnter and I. WE stood with tears in our eyes and joy in our hearts as we felt for the first time what it was like to be full and equal parts of a society. We were, for the moment, no longer a minority merely tolerated by a majority -- a minority who's rights must be granted at the pleasure of the majority -- we were absolutely equal to every other human being in that country. And the tears were partly in joy and partly in sadness of knowing that once we came back to our own country -- OUR home -- where we were born, raised, pay taxes, work, live, have family -- that this marriage license would be nothing more than a piece of paper ... a memory of equality.

After our honeymoon, as we crossed back into the US and Pennsylvania, we sat in silence. Simply by driving mere yards we no longer had the security that should one of us be hurt or die the other would be able to visit in the hospital, have power of attorney decisions, or be able to inherit any property without dozens of legal documents. We plan to have children someday and we knew that we would have to struggle financially to spend the thousands of dollars necessary to procure second parent adoption and provide our children with a secure home with two legal parensts. Even after we spend thousands, homophobic family members can contest wills and other legal arrangements as invalid. What is the point of all this except bigotry and hatred?! People who must make themselves feel superior spiritually, culturally, and in every other way by imposing their will on a minority population. This has happened before plenty of times in our history, must we repeat it again? Can anyone -- ANYONE of you out there who supports this ban tell me EXACTLY in very literal terms how my marriage affects yours? Would you want the government telling you who and how you can love? Today I feel ashamed to be a Pennsylvanian, and it is my deepest wish to take my talents, tax dollars and family and move out of this state to a place where one particular interpretation of RELIGIOUS beliefs is allowed to decide the laws of a secular society.

-- Rachel P., Harrison City

I agree with the people who say that the legislature is wasting time, money and effort in an attempt to write further discrimination into what should be a sacred document granting rights, not restricting them. I personally don't believe in marriage, period, I think that divorce makes it a sham, NOT homosexuals. People who talk about the "sacred institution" of marriage are the same as "baseball purists" who oppose new changes but not the old ones -- as Mr. Plunkett states, marriage has gone through so many changes throughout history, what EXACTLY is sacred about the institution? I am a historian, I can tell you that what we consider marriage today would be blashphemous 200 or more years ago (and I am talking about how heterosexual marriage is practised today).

I was raised in a family with two parents, male and female. They cheated on each other, my father beat us up regularly, they played us children off each other, and they had such a bitter divorce that it took over 20 years for them to be able to sit in the same room and be civil to each other. Is THIS your idea of a "sacred institution?" My parents are not out of the ordinary, unfortunately, they are quite normal for what goes on in most of this nation, and I've been around the block enough times that no one can tell me I am out of line here. Most marriages are a joke. I don't even know why gays want to get into that situation. God bless them for wanting to bring a little bit of class to the whole institution (and yes, I did say GOD bless them, God created us all and I believe that God loves us more than most people want to believe, God loves everyone, period).

In my life I have seen gays make things better for everyone. They take nasty old neighborhoods and clean them up, raise property values, and beautify their surroundings. They don't clog up the world with more unwanted babies and unwanted divorce litigation. Their relationships are more between equals than the dominance/submission I see inherent in heterosexual relationships. Sometimes I wish I was gay because they seem to have it all -- money, education, true love, and style. Again, I don't know why they want to give that up for something so stupid as marriage, but that should be their prerogative in a free society.

The older I get, the more libertarian I get. The government needs to get out of our bedrooms, out of our personal lives, and out of our constitution. Learn to live within the constitution -- the people who put together this country were smarter than anyone who lives in it now, and they knew what they were doing. There were gays in the colonial days, there were plenty of gays around William Penn and Ben Franklin, and back then they were not discriminated against, they were treated as equals. But back then, people often married for money in arranged marriages.

In fact, that's a thought -- bring back arranged marriages! That is a more timeless part of this "sacred institution" than marrying for love. Look what marrying for "love" has gotten us: lots and lots of divorce. Marry for financial obligation as part of a family contract, and you will see less divorce. Make marriage mean something, because today it means nothing. Until the gays do it, and then it will mean something again.

-- Kelly Rusinack, Uniontown

I for one applaud the actions taken by our state legislature to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The union of two same sex partners is not only unholy in my book, but it is also unnatural as well. We as a society have become too accepting of things that are immoral, and it is nice to see our government officials take a stand for once. I think governor Schwarzenegger said it best: "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

-- Matt Kurczewski, Pittsburgh

I am completely appalled at the way our government is handling issues these days. I am a young lesbian, who moved to Pittsburgh two years ago. We, as a Gay/Lesbian Community do not deserve to be treated and put in such a category as the state is placing us. We are not hurting anything, and we do not push our way of living on other people, why must they do the same thing to us? I am not scared to speak my opinion nor am I scared to live the life that was chosen for me. How is it that our country has all of this time worrying about who people are laying in bed with at night, or coming home to after work, when there is a war going on, drugs taking over the country, and poverty. I think that those issues are affecting our country as a whole, and should be taken more seriously than who can and cannot marry. I will take a step for the Gay/Lesbian community and just ask for a little respect in this state, and around the country. We are capable of loving people, and taking care of children, we are people too, just like the people voting against us.

-- Kelly, Pittsburgh

It is unbelievable to me that the government should be given the right to decide what the "right" family is and what the "wrong" family is all about. Why should the president be able to tell people that their relationships are not valid? I know many families with two mothers or two fathers and each of those children are well-rounded, intelligent, successful kids. One of them is even a successful ballet dancer with our own Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre AND the child is not homosexual. Imagine that! Regular people raising regular kids!

We the people have given too much power ... strike that ... .we the people have had our power taken away. To allow a government to decide who we are allowed to marry is beyond ridiculous. As long as our government wants to set the country back a few million years, why don't we outlaw interracial marriages? Better yet, why don't we make African Americans and other "minorities" sit in the back of the bus again or drink from their own fountains or sit on their side of the restaurant? We're talking about human rights here people. How do we let it get this out of control! It's 2006. Grow up. People are people whether they're gay, straight, black, white, purple, old, young, upside down, inside out, etc. To allow our government to decide which of those is the "right" person to be MUST BE unconstitutional.

It's ok for George Bush to send my best friends and family to die in an unjustified war, to ignore the minimum wage issue so I have to work two jobs to survive, to allow the $3.00+ at the pump jump go unanswered. For crying out loud, he can't even explain why there weren't any signs of an actual plane hitting the pentagon! Sorry Prez but I'm not an idiot. No 747 or whichever plane they claim hit it today puts a giant circular hole into the side of a building without wreckage or wing damage. Not to mention the fact that at the speed the "plane" was going, it would be impossible for the fuel to disintegrate an entire plane as well as the fact that if a plane hit that building the fuelsell lodge (or whatever the fuel's home is called) would've have been driven deep into the building. But, we aren't allowed to talk about that are we.

He and his administration are starving Americans.

This is a very sad day for Pennsylvanians. I'm sorry to say I'm one of the them.

-- Rachel Tarquinio, Coraopolis

Banning gay marriage is a priority?? No time to consider a smoking ban?? Children still go into Pennsylvania restaurants and have smoke blown in their faces, and yet they say they are for children's well-being... Smoking = Good; Gays = Bad.

-- Thomas, Monroeville

My wife and I are natives of New Castle, but we both left long ago. I am not surprised by the move to ban same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. I see this as indicative of the bigotry and religious zealotry I observed growing up in the region. It should not come as a surprise that young, educated professionals seek to leave Pennsylvania as long as the elected officials and general populace feel that getting involved in personal matters is tax money well spent.

-- Barry L. Westcott, New Britain, Conn.

A sad day for Pennsylvania. Discrimination will be permitted in the state constitution. It's a good thing the "will of the people" was never used to vote on school desegregation, restricted neighborhoods or interracial marriages decades ago. It took those "activist" judges to right the wrongs of the past and protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

-- George, Pittsburgh

I am pleased that the state House has taken this step to protect marriage, families and freedoms of speech and religion in Pennsylvania. The recognition of same-sex "marriages" has much wider implications for our society than I see in many of the opinions presented here. The debate surrounding this issue is not so much about the "marriages" themselves, but about creating legitimacy for homosexual behavior and seeing it as a normal, healthy, equal option for our citizens and convincing us that there will no ill effects on our society as a result. In countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, only a very small percent of homosexuals have applied for marriage licenses. It's not about getting married (for many, for some I realize it is), but is about the right to do so and having that lifestyle be seen as a normal option.

As far as the implications for our society, one needs only look to Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage is now granted as a result of a court decision) or to countries like Canada (which recently legalized same-sex marriage) to begin to see how differently our lives would be. And legal experts, regardless of which side of the debate they are on, agree that there would be serious legal clashes between the rights of homosexuality and rights of religion. For instance, in Massachusetts, a prominent Catholic charity, Catholic Charities, that places children for adoption was forced to close its doors because of its adherence to Catholic doctrine. They would not place children with homosexual couples and were told they no longer have that choice. In Massachusetts public schools, children are taught about the normalcy of homosexuality right along with their ABC's and parents are not given a choice about this instruction and are not even being told that it is happening until little Johnny comes home and tells Mom what he learned today. There is currently a lawsuit regarding this from outraged parents in the Lexington schools in that state. In Canada, individuals who speak publicly against homosexuality are brought before the Human Rights Tribunal. My mother, who was born in Germany in 1937, learned a phrase as a young child growing up in a country under Nazi control: "Die Gedanken sind frei." It translates "Thoughts are free", because the German people knew that if they said the wrong thing it could have serious consequences, only their thoughts were free to think. There was not free speech. What direction are we heading? Even in our own state, thanks to the passage of hate crimes legislation, 11 citizens on a public street in Philadelphia were arrested because they were sharing their Christian faith during a gay festival. Some people were offended by their words. I know that I have not referenced my examples here. I invite you to do some research and reading on the internet or elsewhere about these things.

Just as some of you do not wish to live in a theocracy based upon the belief of a traditional God and the belief that the words of Scripture are God-inspired and show us (for our own good) how we should live, I do not want to live in a society where religious beliefs and any speech that says homosexuality is sin or is not good for our society are illegal- a society where only thoughts are free. Can the extension of the definition of marriage to include homosexuality really lead to a live and let live society between people who hold such different worldviews? From the examples of others who have already gone down that road, the answer is apparently, "No."

-- Karen, Bedford

Not only does this make me furious for the fact that there are a million more pressing issues our state should be spending their time and money on, but this amendment is one of the biggest discrimination cases I have ever seen in my generation (I am a twenty-something). We are supposed to be a country with freedoms, one of them being freedom of religion and the separation between church and state, so I am very angered when supporters of the ban quote the Bible and other statements that reference Christian weddings. FYI people, there is not one religion that all must follow in this country; therefore we should not make laws that bow down to any particular religion's ideology, bottom line.

-- Anne, Avalon

People who support these changes often point to the immutable nature of the institution of marriage. They should read a book one of these days. It was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court made it illegal to outlaw interracial marriages in the US. In 1965 it became illegal to prevent couples from using contraception. Similarly there were changes to laws about polygamy, wives' economic freedom, and so on at various times. The "institution" of marriage is constantly changing in our consciousness. This GLBT issue is just the next phase, and is a move toward more complete civil liberty.

-- Matthew Plunkett, Forest Hills

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we have enough problems in this country to deal with, than worry about something this silly. It is plain and simple. One man and one woman re-unit together start a family. Man vs. Man and Woman vs. Woman doesn't cut it nor will they bare children, unless they adopt, so can you spare me about this Gay rights issue, it is very annoying and a waste of taxpayer money. Gee, it is amazing we have alot of homeless people in this country, including starving children. The people who are suffering the most is our neighbors to the south, the Hurricane Katrina victims. I guess the priorities are O'CONUS and then if the politicians get a chance or when it meets their schedule, we the American people. Standby again, Hurricane season is upon us. I can't wait to see how the politicians will screw this one up. The constitution amendment is for nothing but politcal gain, because the Republicans know, they are in big trouble in 2006 and 2008.

-- T.M. Ziemba, Chesapeake, Va.

How appropriate that the PA House's work of evil (discrimination) should coincide with the date of 666.

As reported in the PG, Rep Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry was "jubilant" over the passage of the gay marriage ban amendment he wrote. We would hope that historians and voters also remember Metcalfe and his supporters for what they are -- religion-driven fear-mongering terrorists. Metcalfe conveniently forgets that he placed his hand on a bible and promised to uphold the constitution -- he did not put his hand on the constitution and promise to uphold his religion's bible.

Intelligent people such as Dr Sarah Springer were not given an opportunity to speak before the Judiciary Committee's hearings because the Judiciary Committee held no hearings on such a controversial religious based discriminatory measure. This House action is very similar to the middle-of-the-night pay raise issue. It divides instead of unifies the public. It destroys the separation of Church from State. The organizations which promote VOTE THEM ALL OUT just got a major shot in the arm.

We are surprised and disgusted at the number of representatives who represent dying towns laden with high drug & crime problems spent even one minute of their legislative time dealing with THIS issue let alone voting FOR it. Maybe they want to appear to be doing SOMETHING so that no one looks into WHY they are not doing anything to significantly improve the area that they represent.

Terrorism is alive and well in Pennsylvania -- it just goes by another name -- "honorable representative" ... Hitler would be SO proud of the PA legislature.

-- Robert Arlia, Cranberry

For the legislators and other people supporting this ban: please, mind your own business. Gay marriage is not hurting anyone (and don't get started on "family values" -- we heterosexuals don't do very well with that) and would improve the quality of lives of many people that are already in these committed relationships.

I find it so incredibly ironic that they would not have a problem (conceptually) with these bans, yet when Islamic states do the same sort of things based on THEIR own religion and definitions of morality, now THAT's a problem! It seems that in the US passing laws that matches ones' own beliefs and interpretation of morality, that's ok. But when others do it, oh boy -- we're got some extremist regime to deal with...

-- Alex V., Mt Lebanon

We are already heading down the road of moral decay. This is the same decay that destroyed other civilizations, (Roman, Greek for example). Not taking a stand on same-sex marriage would add grease to the slide our society is already on. This slide ends in the pit of Hell.

This will also stop radical judges from legislating from the bench.

-- Joe Afflerbach

This move is appalling and illogical, but sadly, not surprising. The PG article quotes Rep. Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry as saying "This is a great victory for men, women and children in Pennsylvania."

Does he not consider members of the GLBT community to be men, women, or children? I wonder, what are we, if we are not counted among the men, women, and children of this state?

Rep. Scott Boyd of Lancaster asks "What will the family look like in 30 years if we let the courts redefine marriage?" I would like to answer him: American families will look the same as they do now. They will be heterosexual two parent led families, straight single parent led families, grandparent led families, two parent GLBT led families, single GLBT led families, and so on and so on. "Family", rather than being a static institution, as our Legislature would have us believe, is an infinitely diverse concept.

Children have been, and continue to be, raised by any combination of moms, dads, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, and fictive kin. This is a country that ripped children away from poor immigrant families and sent them to be adopted by Midwestern farmers. We did the same to Native American families, sending their children to federally sponsored Christian boarding schools far from their homes. We certainly demonstrated no sense of the value the biological family then.

Further, establishing illegality has never served to eliminate anything, be it the buying or selling of illegal drugs, theft, spousal abuse, homicide, racial discrimination, etc. Likewise, Pennsylvania's DOMA 10 years ago did not end same sex relationships, nor will this constitutional ban, should it pass. What it will do is continue and further efforts to severely restrict our rights and responsibilities to take care of those we love.

When same sex partners fall ill, that partner is considered an independent adult, who often becomes indigent through loss of employment and health insurance. Charitable funds or the State pick up the tab through disability insurance payments and Medicaid. If same sex partners are permitted to marry and be financially responsible for each other, we can provide health insurance to our ill partners. We can provide health insurance to our kids -- yes, we have kids! And we will continue to have kids regardless of this legislation.

The question is, will the people of Pennsylvania permit us the tools to take care of our kids, or would the State like to continue to pick up the tab? When partners can marry and legally parent children together, both incomes will be considered when kids apply for college financial aid. If we can not marry or legally co-parent, only the legal and/or biological parent's income will be considered.

I could go on. Full civil marriage rights for the GLBT citizenry cost the citizens of Pennsylvania nothing. GLBT Pennsylvanians WANT to assume these costs. We WANT to support our own families.

Denying access to full civil marriage rights takes money directly out of the pockets of the good citizens of Pennsylvania. Are the citizens of Pennsylvania comfortable with the costs of NOT extending the full rights and responsibilities of legal civil marriage to GLBT partners who choose to take on the challenge?

-- Mary Alberth, Squirrel Hill

These corrupt riff raff, aka state legislature are desperately seeking an issue that will prevent their mass execution in November. They are beneath contempt!

Marriage to a woman is great -- I've had one for 50 years. If, however, someone wants a "civil union," what do I care? Of course, the merger of homosexuals is not a marriage, but everybody knows that. In any case, who needs a discredited politician to stand up and denounce something that is not an immediate threat to anyone? And, of course, there are no "activist judges" (they're rather ignorant and lethargic around here, actually) within 200 miles.

-- Jack W., Lewisburg, Pa.

It is so sad that our government is allowing and participating in this blatant discrimination against a large and significant part of our population.

I would really like to know what people are scared of. I have yet to hear an argument that truly outlines a negative outcome of allowing same-sex marriage. How does two same-sex people who are in love and get married jeopardize the marriage of a heterosexual couple? Please, someone explain to me how one is going to have an affect on the other.

-- Erica Jackson, Pittsburgh

I do not believe in same sex marriages. I do not have any problem with gays. I actually have some friends that are gay. But I believe that marriage should be defined as male and female union.

-- Paul S.

I am definitely against same sex marriage and polygamous marriages. The vows stated say "one man and one woman" and "for the purpose of procreation". Why is it that all of the good and solid values on which this country was founded are always being attacked.

-- Yvonne A.

I find it mind-boggling that with all the problems Pennsylvania has, they focus on this issue. There are a wealth of other issues that need looked at, not this. I'm ashamed to say I live in Pennsylvania!

-- Matt Kiesling, Bethel Park

Why is it that the elected officials of this state can gather to vote for a ban to same sex marriage but have no interest or enthusiasm for passing a state budget?

Why are my taxpayer dollars being used to represent a portion of this states' residents and not on issues that affect all Pennsylvanians. A marriage is a civil union. Always has and always will be. The license is government issued and all people capable of marrying a couple are licensed by the government. There is a word in both the Federal and State constitutions and it has an implicit definition and cannot be refuted or debated. That word is equal. Equal means equal. And just because something has not been done before doesn't make it a bad thing.

So please tell those self righteous, bible-thumping public servants that work for all Pennsylvanians and their narrow minded views and beliefs do not represent all of us. Perhaps they need to work for the money we provide for their pay and work on those issues which affect all of us. Not just their bigoted constituency or political party.

-- Bob Poropatich, Pittsburgh

What about the rash of heroine overdose deaths that are haunting our streets, the number of people without health insurance, the effects of rising prices for necessities on those with fixed income (like our elderly), the condition of our public schools, or the more than weekly shooting deaths of young people in our urban neighborhoods in Pittsburgh! These are the real emergencies and deteriorations we face as a society, not the legislation of morality.

I lived in Vermont and worked for the Vermont State Legislature while this debate was raging there; Vermont stood its ground, solved a problem of unconstitutionality that the State Supreme Court said existed and ended up with a system that did not tear apart anything close to the State's moral fabric. I don't see Pennsylvania as identical to Vermont by any means, but I do think that we can learn by the successes and failures of other places.

That said, I'm glad the vote is over and the Government can get back to work.

-- Joy, Squirrel Hill

Today is our 29th anniversary My partner and I own a home in Pennsylvania and pay significant taxes to our state and local government. For the state and federal government to debate passing constitutional amendments to discriminate against us is outrageous. As Pennsylvania residents when one of us dies the other will have to pay 15% Pennsylvania inheritance on half of our home, cars and assets. Assets pass tax free to a married spouse. After retirement we may move to a more tax friendly state avoid this huge penalty. I don't personally care about "legally" getting married because I am married in my heart. I do care about the profound discrimination we face particularly with social security benefits and inheritance taxes.

-- Cindy Klink, Murrysville

The ban against same sex marriages is not discrimination, bigotry, or denial of one's rights in any way! It is merely protection for a sacred institution that's been around for hundreds of years and is now being threatened. Why should a minority and a small number of activist judges be allowed to force their views on the majority by changing the definition of marriage? If gays want to form some sort of union to try to legitimize their relationship, that's fine with me but please call it something else!

-- Wayne Cymbor, North Huntingdon

How sad that we can spend so much time deciding what a family should look like when we have people on the street without food or homes, folks without health insurance, and casinos looming on our doorsteps. Congratulations, Pennsylvania, for wasting my money and alienating more citizens.

-- Caitlin Lenahan, Pittsburgh

Once again, I am shocked and dismayed by the narrow-mindedness of our elected officals.

I ask -- wouldn't any child would be lucky to have 2 parents to love and support them regardless if it is two men or two women? The answer is yes.

For those of you who think that this isn't your problem because you are straight, think again. Right now, homosexuals are the targets, but it is only a matter of time before heterosexual rights are impugned. Government is already banning the availability of emergency contraception and asking all post-pubescent/pre-menopausal women to consider themselves "pre-pregnant," regardless of whether they ever plan on having children.

I hope that this serves as a wake-up call to the citizens of Pennsylvania and in turn, the entire country. Our government officals, those we have elected, are imposing their personal rights onto the citizens they serve. It's time to put the people in office who reflect our values of tolerance and justice.

-- Dee Sherry, Shaler

I wonder how gay marriages will stop heterosexuals from procreating. Additionally, with the divorce rate so high, one might propose to outlaw heterosexual marriage and allow only gay marriage [LOL]. But returning to earth, this issue should not even be on a legislature's agenda. I'm thinking the heroin scourge is a little bit more important here.

"Children need moms and dads," agreed Rep. Tom Yewcic, D-Cambria. "To say that moms and dads -- male and female -- don't matter causes harm in their development. Having two fathers or two mothers is neither real nor plausible biologically."

Rep. Yewcic has an unidentified agenda, as his quote makes no sense. I find no logical reason to change the constitution.

-- David Marks, Duquesne

If people want to live in a theocracy, might I suggest moving to Iran?

-- John Lubic, Weirton, W.Va.

I had planned to write a long response on this topic but Lynn from Carrick beat me to almost all of my points. I agree absolutely with everything that she said. Make PA a "fault" divorce state where the unfaithful partner loses EVERYTHING (house, money, children, etc) and maybe the divorce rate will go down. And it will stimulate the economy by creating a multitude of new Private Investigative firms!!!

I would add: obesity is another REAL threat to our nation and our children. Should fat people be allowed to get married and have kids? Should those with fat kids be punished or criminalized in some way? What about second hand smoke? If this is all about "protecting the children," let's pass that smoking ban AND make it a crime to smoke in a house or a car with a child. Get real!!! And get back to GOVERNING.

I'd almost rather see the legislature pass themselves another fat pay raise than try to become moral police. The same people that tell the government "GET OUT OF MY GUN SAFE" are also telling the government to get INTO everyone else's bedrooms and family structures. What a bunch of hypocrites.

-- Kim, Cranberry

How typical. In a state wrought with intolerance, let's do what we can to legalize such behavior and attitudes. Also, I think I read somewhere that Pa has the highest cost of government per capita in the country. What a marvelous way for the politicians to ensure that its citizens get their money's worth.

Instead of dealing with substantive issues such as the high cost of government, the extraordinary business tax rates that only serve to increase our lack of competitiveness, deteriorating infrastructure such as bridges and roads, and out of control property taxes, let's make certain that our "family values" are preserved by banning gay marriages. Geez, what's next, a flag-burning amendment?

-- Shawn Calloway, Monroeville

Those people who want there rights imposed on the majority of the American people, go get a life. This country was built on morals regardless spiritual or political. Just like the man in California who wants in God we Trust off of our money. If he doesn't like it why is he using it. Go to another country and live where they don't have it. This country has gone down hill ever since they took religion out of schools and our children have no basis for whats right or wrong. They are pulled in every direction or none at all. Quit imposing your so-called rights on America

-- Roberta P., Hopewell

The government needs to stay out of what we believe in or do. They need to concentrate on the poor families who can't make ends means or living in the streets because utilities are too high or their houses are up for sheriff's sales because of cut backs in the job markets.

-- Deb, Pittsburgh

Legislators, on the local and national level, continually put forth the assertion that gay marriage is a social cancer that will seemingly destroy society. I don't see how this is. I am married. If someone who is gay decides to marry, it doesn't diminish the value of my marriage in the least.

The social cancer that seems to be threatening society resides in the current state of government, at each and every level, and its proclivity to exclusion. Representative Scott Boyd of Lancaster has been quoted as saying, "The institution of marriage is in danger of being compromised by activist judges and special interests who want to permanently redefine it." (Lawmakers want constitutional amendment to strengthen Pa.'s ban on gay marriage, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 25, 2006).

It is frightening to think that a judge's interpretation of the law that runs counter to someone's political agenda qualifies that judge as being an "activist." It follows the same line of thought as someone who is against the war in Iraq being called unpatriotic.

The institution of marriage is in no danger. If gay marriage were legal, would heterosexual couples stop marrying? No. Would people mock heterosexual couples, thereby limiting their liberty, because their gay counterparts have the same right to wed? No. The threat of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the state level, and national level, as well, is a political device and nothing more. It serves to protect no one, while alienating many. It serves to discriminate against homosexuals, which runs counter to Section 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states: "Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right."

So why does this argument persist if it is so clearly defined in the PA Constitution? The Constitutions, both of Pennsylvania and the nation, are dynamic documents that warrant review to ensure their relevance and viability over time.

What lawmakers are doing is attempting to change the law to meet their political agendas, not preserve the sanctity of these documents. They are blatantly telling a group of people that they are NOT equal... they do NOT deserve the same rights as heterosexuals... they do NOT deserve to be protected by the Constitution. These arguments are outrageous, hypocritical, and shameful. They sound very familiar to the same arguments that prompted Dr. Martin Luther King to take a stand against this discrimination.

The political debate being waged in Harrisburg, and in Washington, against this particular group of citizens is disgraceful and dishonors the very document that it argues to amend.

-- Mark Byrne, Castle Shannon

Being a married, heterosexual female, I have been wondering ... how do you defend 'traditional marriage' (between a man and a woman for the purposes of rearing a family)by anything other than by outlawing divorce?? In addition, should there be the testing of both people beforehand to insure that they can procreate? (hmmm ... should infertile couples be allowed to marry? They cannot have biological children any more than homosexuals can.) Also, mandate a waiting period between getting a license and the having the actual ceremony, and require proof of premarital counselling, to stress the importance and weight of the institution to those contemplating it ... and dole out harsh punishments to those that violate the vows taken ... whether through neglect, abuse, infidelity, or laziness. People are not getting divorced because of "gayness." Address the REAL threats to marriage ... easy to get into and out of with no consequence. You can even go on TV to win a marriage after 6 weeks of competition!

Marriage has not always been the institution it has come to be ... it used to simply be a financial arrangement between families, where women were chattel. Love had nothing to do with it. Is THAT the tradition our lawmakers are pining for?

It is not homosexuality that is a 'threat to marriage,' heterosexuals have that market cornered ... always have.

As far as childrearing ... is it better to have two partners, providing stability and continuity in a childs' life (no matter the orientation) or a single parent with a number of 'dates' coming in an out of the child's life? Is someone going to tell me with a straight (no pun intended) face, that a homosexual couple will 'turn' a child into a homosexual?? If that is your argument ... please explain how two wonderfully heterosexual conservatives like the Cheney's managed to have a homosexual daughter. Should they have been denied the opportunity to have children because of their 'influences'?

It used to be interracial couples, now it's homosexuals. Who will be the next group denied the rights, protections and obligations of marriage? Why the eagerness to write discrimination into state and federal constitutions? Isn't that what we have men and women dying in Iraq for? Freedom?

Is this REALLY the most pressing issue facing our states and our nation at this point in time??

-- Lynn, Carrick

No time for smoking ban, but plenty of time for posturing!

-- Hobart Richey, Hampton Township

The whole thing is a farce. First off, the amendment began as a gay marriage amendment. How did this now to come to include polygamous marriages? The amendments sponsors knew they could not pass a gay marriage amendment, so they decided to include us with polygamists. Congrats to the 19 Democrats who voted for the amendment ... . They should now vote themselves a pay raise for their great efforts in governing our State.

-- Gerald Kvortek, Lawrenceville

First published on June 7, 2006 at 12:00 am