Your "protection" isn't required
Our state lawmakers are considering a "protection of marriage" bill that is aimed at changing the state constitution to prohibit gay and lesbian marriage in Pennsylvania. As with all of these measures, which keep popping up across the country, I have to ask what threat two gay people getting hitched poses to my marriage or anyone else's. There is no threat. It's asinine to say there is. But we live in a country in which gay people are about the only group that it's OK to discriminate against. Heck, some people actively encourage it. On the long list of issues facing our state and nation, I wouldn't even try to find a spot for something as ridiculous as this "protection of marriage" bill. I'm still waiting to hear a valid argument as to why gay men and lesbians should be prevented from marrying. The "it's against the Bible" crap is just that, crap. We don't live in a theocracy, and marriage, along with the benefits stemming from it, is a civil procedure. Whether you're married by the mayor of Cokeburg or the pope, you have to get a license. The legislation making its way through the Capitol also would ban civil unions, and opponents of the bill fear that if it is ultimately approved, it could threaten decisions by some universities and businesses that already offer health and other benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. The bill still must be approved by both houses of the Legislature in the current term and in the 2009-10 session. Then it would go to a statewide referendum in November 2009. There's still time for common sense to prevail on this issue, but if it makes it to the ballot, I have no doubt that the "forward-thinking" voters of Pennsylvania will approve it by a wide margin. Sad.