In response to the June 19 Post-Gazette editorial "Marital Discord: The State's Gay Marriage Ban Hits a Roadblock":

Your editorial Monday about the Marriage Protection Amendment stated that "gay marriage is already forbidden by state law" -- Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act -- "with no likelihood of a challenge in the foreseeable future."

What is the "foreseeable future"?

		State Sen.Bob Regola, R-Hempfield, and state Rep. Scott W. Boyd, R-Lancaster, are prime sponsors of the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment.

In Massachusetts, the court case that led to legalization of same-sex marriage took all of 18 months from original filing to final ruling by their Supreme Court. If the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment would pass the Senate and House this month, the earliest a change could be voted into the Pennsylvania Constitution is 17 months.

No one can legitimately claim that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act will not be challenged in court. The testimony of gay-marriage advocates in Harrisburg confirms it is not a matter of if, but when. Prominent individuals from the ACLU and other organizations believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. Knowing there is little chance of accomplishing that goal legislatively, using the court to achieve this legislative agenda becomes an attractive tool.

It is a tool that has been used in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Washington state. Meanwhile, court and legislative actions that have legalized "civil unions" (a same-sex marriage equivalent) in other states prove that is not an imagined concern.

That's why citizens in 20 states have ratified state marriage protection amendments by an average approval rate of more than 71 percent. Seventy percent of the 20 states, like Pennsylvania, have language to preclude civil unions -- which is gay marriage in everything but name. This provision is imperative, to make certain the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is constitutionally consistent with equal protection provisions in the United States Constitution.

Opponents are aware of this and have repeatedly tried to dilute the amendment in both the state House and Senate. A vote to weaken the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment by allowing civil unions is a vote that will kill the effort to protect marriage in this legislative session.

Further assertions that such an amendment could form the basis for denying hospital visitation rights and the end of same-sex health benefits are simply untrue. Under current law, marriage is by definition the union of one man and one woman, yet domestic partners receive health benefits from both public and private employers. Hospital visitation rights, along with many other rights and benefits, are provided to "life partners" or "adult designees."

The Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment does nothing to alter any of the current rights and benefits provided to domestic partners. It simply provides the people of this commonwealth the right to vote to provide constitutional clarity to current law so individuals can't use the courts to redefine marriage.

The people of Pennsylvania should define marriage, not activist-driven courts.

The voters in Massachusetts, Washington state, New York and New Jersey have been pre-empted from making that decision. Our hope is that through the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, Pennsylvanians will not be denied that opportunity. If the people believe marriage should be something other than one man and one woman, then let the people make that decision.