Pa. to ban gay unions?

The stage is set for the full Pennsylvania Senate to vote on a constitutional amendment that would outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state, although chances appear slim it will gain traction in ...

[Jeff Spangler]

Why not buck the trend of modern civil rights law like Virginia did and strengthen a statutory ban with a constitutional amendment in case those poofter-hugging federal judges decide that the U.S. Constitution's Equal Rights clause is paramount?

[thecynic]

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the constitution. It's the religious nuts that think it's a big deal. Religion= the thorn in the side of humanity.

[Johnny]

Oh my goodness, WHO CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW????
Of all the problems people are having these days, and they're worried about gay people getting married? For the love of God, fix the REAL problems with this stupid state before you worry about who can get married or not. Fix the horrible roads around here, eliminate property taxes, prevent developers from penetrating anymore quiet communities around here. Stop focusing so much time, effort, and money on Government Homophobia and start listening to what people really care about.

[1noteasilyfooled]

It got tabled...

[Andy Johnson]

Johnny wrote:

Oh my goodness, WHO CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW????
Of all the problems people are having these days, and they're worried about gay people getting married? For the love of God, fix the REAL problems with this stupid state before you worry about who can get married or not. Fix the horrible roads around here, eliminate property taxes, prevent developers from penetrating anymore quiet communities around here. Stop focusing so much time, effort, and money on Government Homophobia and start listening to what people really care about.

But that means they would actually have to do some real work. So much easier to argue over gay unions or smoking bans. That doesn't require any creative thinking or problem-solving. After all, they were only elected because they looked good in their suits and kept repeating the party slogans. This is why I'm running. I want to try out ideas, not play games.

[no marry]

I have no problem with civil unions, i would prefer if the lawmakers don't call it marriage though. I'm not paranoid but 2000 years of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman should not be changed. If this issue is really about spousal rights a union should satisfy that requirement.

[devons]

no marry wrote:

I have no problem with civil unions, i would prefer if the lawmakers don't call it marriage though. I'm not paranoid but 2000 years of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman should not be changed. If this issue is really about spousal rights a union should satisfy that requirement.

Just because?

[no marry]

Devons, what part of my post is unclear?

[devons]

no marry wrote:

Devons, what part of my post is unclear?

I'm a bit old to accept 'just because' as a valid reason for anything.

By the way your post was quite clear. I just viewed as a rather childish view.

[xxxxxxxxx]

how many insurance companies are lobbying law makers to ban gay marriage. That would be more benefits they would have to pay if more people got married. Sometimes it's not a moral issue but a finacial one. Big business runs our goverment on all levels.

[rizzo]

i really dont have a problem with gay marrige or civil unions.if two people are in love,no matter with the same sex or not they should be able to get married.i do agree with jonny there are many more issues that need to be dealt with before the gay thing or smoking bans,i swear this state is ass backwards,good ol' commonwealth..........LEGALIZE MARIJUANA,then let gays get married

[Nate Dawg]

The state governments should get of the marriage game and only license civil unions. Marriage is a religious ceremony and if a certain church/temple/mosque doesn't want to recognize a gay marriage then that's their right. Future generations will look back on this issue wondering what was the fuss just as we do in regards to the laws and attitudes against interracial marriage a half century ago.

[AKT]

The effort to define marriage as being between a man and a woman as the "traditional" or "right way" is patently false. Anyone who has ever taken an anthropology course should know that. Why is it so important to preserve a minority's definition of a word? Shouldn't the religious be more interested in preserving the actual spirit of their dogma - equality and peacefulness? Last time I checked that didn't include making an entire social group into pariahs.

[Quest]

no marry wrote:

I have no problem with civil unions, i would prefer if the lawmakers don't call it marriage though. I'm not paranoid but 2000 years of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman should not be changed. If this issue is really about spousal rights a union should satisfy that requirement.

Actually, that lagel definition is fairly recent, and was in fearful response to those uppity gays wanting the same options and rights and protections for their spouses and families that their taxes pay for.