- This prick, Sen. John Eichelberger, represents the area of the state where my dad was born and raised.
In my home state of Pennsylvania, a state Senate committee is expected to vote tomorrow on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, according to a brief editorial in The Philadelphia Daily News. I’ve been uable to find any other coverage of tomorrow’s vote, including in the state’s largest LGBT publication, The Philadelphia Gay News. Similar proposals have been defeated twice before in Pennsylvania, in 2006 and 2008. This year the amendment reportedly was introduced by Republican Sen. John Eichelberger. Pennsylvania is one of 20 states that don’t have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. But same-sex marriage is already prohibited by statute in the Keystone State. From the Daily News:
Uneeded [sic] reform
USUALLY, we’re delighted when state lawmakers talk about reforming the constitution. State government desperately needs to modernize, but tomorrow a Senate panel will consider taking a step backward. The Judiciary Committee is set to vote on Senate Bill 707, which would ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania.During these tough times, we can think of a few better uses of the Legislature’s time. How about a constitutional amendment to require lawmakers to pass a budget on time? Or to shrink the size and cost of the Legislature? How about updating the state’s antiquated tax code or campaign finance reform? All of these would be better than a constitutional amendment about gay marriage.
Gay marriage isn’t even legal in Pennsylvania. Nor are civil unions or any other kind acknowledgment of same-sex couples. There is no need for a constitutional amendment to ban something that isn’t happening anyway.
If supporters of traditional marriage are worried about the erosion of moral values, it would be more effective to ban divorce. Nearly 50 percent of marriages end in divorce.
We’re pretty sure gay people getting married isn’t the reason.
UPDATE: Write a note to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee by going here.
They all claim to be strict constitutionalists and champions of freedom until they decide to amend the constitutions of states to include bigotry.