The Pennsylvania Ban on Gay Marriage

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives will soon vote on amending the Commonwealth Constitution to "protect" marriage by banning gay marriage.

On February 28, I sent this letter to our State Rep. Grell and Senator Vance:

I cannot tell you how appalled I am over the effort of so many state legislators to get an amendment passed to "protect" marriage by banning gays from the legal right to be married.

Marriage between heterosexuals doesn't need to be protected from homosexuals - most straight people screw up their own marriages quite well on their own.

Can someone explain to me why gays are expected to work, pay taxes and be good citizens, but not to be able to have the same rights as others?

This country really hasn't learn too much from history, has it? It hasn't been all that long since women were given the right to vote. It's been 143 years since the Emancipation Proclamation, and yet a 102 years afterwards the march from Selma to Montgomery, AL, had to take place.

The only "Gay Agenda" homosexuals have is the basic right to pursue their own happiness! It is incredibly mean-spirited and narrow-minded to deny them this.


I did not hear from Rep. Grell, but I did get a letter back from Senator Vance:


Thank you for your recent correspondence on the proposed marriage amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I believe that the institution of marriage is only for a man and a woman. This is currently reflected in Pennsylvania law (23 Pa.C.S. §1704), which I supported when it was enacted in 1996.

Amending the Constitution is a serious matter and great care should be exercised in crafting amendments. I have not yet seen the specifics of Senator Regola's proposal. However, questions have been raised about additional language that may go beyond the protection of marriage and affect the rights of many citizens.

I am not interested in hurting people because they are different than me. I would be unable to support language that could be interpreted to limit the rights of unmarried individuals with regard to hospital visitations, medical decision making, private health coverage or contractual agreements.

Your input on this important public policy issue is very much appreciated.

I just sent a reply to her response:

In your response to me, you stated that "I believe that the institution of marriage is only for a man and a woman."

Lest you say that I am splitting hairs or arguing semantics, your use of the word "believe" speaks volumes to me. It is a Freudian slip, if you will, that clearly shows to me where your train of thought is coming from.

You were elected as a representative of the LAW, not a representative of any particular FAITH. Can you honestly tell me that you have a logical, legal reason for making such a statement? Or are you speaking from a point of view that originates from the Bible?

I do not think that you can do so. To me, the ban on Gay marriage is no different than the ban on black-white marriages of the past. It is discrimination, plain and simple.

I am a lifelong Democrat that has been voting for you for many, many years. I will do so no longer.


Unfortunately, the gay marriage ban is expected to pass without any trouble. Hopefully it will be challenged in a court of law and overturned.