Well, thank goodness somebody is doing something about polygamy in Pennsylvania.

I didn't even realize it was a problem. Sure, a case of bigamy crops up on rare occasions, but having two spouses is already illegal and prosecuted, so having three or five is just as illegal, if not more so. Plus, it's academic -- even the state's leading anti-polygamy crusader, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from Cranberry, can't recall a single instance of it here.

But just because it hasn't happened and would be illegal if it did, that's no reason to not to take additional precautions. A pro-polygamy movement might spring up at any moment and recruit an army of activist judges into its camp (look for ban on mutant marriage next).

Polygamy, of course, is a fig leaf against charges of bigotry. The amendment also bans gay marriage, which is the real target. That, too, is illegal, but there's still the fear of that activist bench, so Mr. Metcalfe is leading the charge for a judge-proof constitutional amendment.

Incredibly, he managed to rouse 135 other House members of both parties from their post-pay-hike, do-nothing stupor to join him, and now the amendment is on the Senate fast track. These guys are impotent when it comes to property tax relief, lobbying reform, killer cigarette smoke and 3.4 million uninsured residents, but they can still get it up for this. There's nothing like red meat from the religious right to stiffen their resolve in an election year.

How anyone can buy the "marriage protection" misnomer is beyond me. Only heterosexuals can marry now, but plenty choose not to. Half of those who do marry get divorced; many lie and cheat, remarry repeatedly, fight over the kids, stiff the ex on child support. If marriage needs protection, it's from straight people. As for "threatening" traditional marriage, does anyone really believe that if gays and lesbians are allowed into the marriage tent, traditional families will stampede out of it?

I put these questions to Mr. Metcalfe, who did his best to explain: "The radical gay agenda," he said, wants to "impose itself into the educational system, requiring children to learn that this is what a family is. The majority of families do not want this extreme view pushed into their family values. It will lead to a confused society with a confused multidefinition of marriage and a weakening of traditional marriage and families." Plus, he said, "It goes against natural law."

So if I understand correctly, these folks want to control children's notion of family so the kids won't be confused into tolerating different notions or worse, adopting them. OK, I can follow that. It's antithetical to an open and diverse society (and good luck with that control thing), but this camp envisions a rigid and monolithic nation, so it's no surprise they'd object.

But if "natural law" is really natural, there should be nothing to fear. If heterosexuals are really at risk of "turning" gay unless there's a social penalty to stop them, that doesn't say much for natural law. But apparently, that's exactly the fear: contagion.

Mr. Metcalfe insisted that homosexuals choose their orientation. Otherwise, there'd be no married people suddenly "coming out." To him, it's not possible that they were in denial and trying to fit in with the majority. He really believes they simply decided to switch teams -- for what gain, he didn't say. And the mounting research into the biological origins of sexuality? "All those studies are flawed," he declared.

Then he said that gay people shouldn't be parents. First, they're "selfish" in finagling children away from traditional couples who then have to go to Russia to adopt (never mind the thousands of children languishing in foster care). Second, they hurt children by failing to provide a male and female parent. What of the studies that have found no such harm (like the American Academy of Pediatrics 2002 report declaring children of gay parents just as well-adjusted as any others)? "Flawed," he said.

So that's the divide, and it's not based on party -- 20 House Democrats from the Pittsburgh area voted for this redundant, mean-spirited amendment. Of course it's a cynical ploy to distract voters from the lawmakers' abysmal record. But it works because it taps a visceral fear that gay people have gained too much ground and must be slapped back into the margins. Then God-fearing "normal" people can go back to pretending they don't exist.

There's only one way social conservatives could believe the things Mr. Metcalfe said about gay families: They don't know any, or don't realize they do. They've never been to their homes, watched them interact with their children over meals, schoolwork or upset stomachs, gone with them to worship. In that vacuum, they've invented cardboard characters who don't share love and commitment, don't need health coverage, joint custody, power of attorney or inheritance rights that others take for granted.

Perhaps some gay parents should invite Mr. Metcalfe over to see if their families are really so different from his own. It won't change his convictions, but it could break down some of his preconceptions.

Folks will believe what they want about sexuality being chosen or inborn, but there's no question that fear and misunderstanding are learned and can be unlearned. Now, about those mutants ...