When it comes to the continuing attempt to make the Pennsylvania Constitution explicitly say that marriage is between one man and one woman, it is hard to say what is worse -- the obsession or the waste of time.

Can we now assume that the Legislature has adequately addressed the issues important to most Pennsylvanians? For example, has it taken all the steps needed to reform itself? Has it enacted comprehensive property tax reform? How about equitable funding for education?

The answer, of course, is "no." Yet over two days this week, one for a hearing with invited speakers, the Senate Judiciary Committee spent time discussing and voting on Senate Bill 1250, the so-called marriage amendment, which is a nonissue for most Pennsylvanians, who are secure in their own marriage no matter what others do.

That is where the obsession comes in. Pennsylvania passed a statute in 1996 that declares marriage in this state is between a man and a woman. Although supporters of the amendment fear that one day the General Assembly could repeal this law, there is no realistic prospect of that happening in such a socially conservative state. For the same reason, activist judges aren't about to overturn the law. Anybody who thinks differently suffers from paranoia, Pennsylvania-style.

So what is wrong with making a statement about marriage in the constitution? For one thing, it would be the wrong statement, a note of bigotry in a document that is supposed to serve high ideals. It is born of a mind-set that singles out gays to blame for society's moral decline, even as the Eliot Spitzers of the world regularly refute that notion.

This amendment is not about wishing to preserve the sanctity of marriage, because that responsibility lies with the individual partners in marriage. (If it really were about the sanctity of marriage, it would also ban divorce. But that would limit the behavior of the many when the real point is to bully the few).

The proposed amendment threatens practical trouble, too. It reads: "No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth" (our italics).

Who knows what that language means? It is aimed at banning civil unions -- which could be a compromise on this divisive issue -- but it might also be used to deny gays domestic-partner benefits.

Despite some brave dissenters -- including Sens. Jay Costa Jr., D-Forest Hills, and Sen. Jane Earll, R-Erie -- the committee approved the bill Tuesday by a 10-4 vote. Fortunately, the process is a long one: The bill must pass in this term of the General Assembly and in the next term, 2009-10, before a referendum could be held.

Before then, let's hope legislators understand they have much better things to do.