There are so many reasons to deny this amendment's passage to the floor of the legislature and to the voters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it's pathetic.
We would not have expected the 13th Amendment to figure in.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Is the denial of living with loved ones as one pleases a form of slavery? Slavery is the forcible compulsion of a people to act against their will, for some perceived benefit by the master.
This is called the "Marriage Protection" amendment instead of the "No Gay Marriage" amendment presumably because the institution of marriage is of value to the people, and it should therefore be strengthened and held in high esteem. How can we justify subjecting another people to live without this good, so that it can be enhanced for others?
Have we appropriated their freedom? Are we compelling them to live against their will, for someone else's gain? To assimilate or perish?
Yes yes yes. Homosexuality is different. Homosexuality is a scourge upon civilizations and a cancer to be eradicated.
This is where the 1st Amendment comes in.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Free exercise. Every one of us can to choose to believe your gobbledygook, or choose not to.
Your formal religion may be your evidence -- but you may also hold your beliefs because of your culture, experiences, inclinations or intuitions. That also is a religion, a belief system -- and you are welcome to it, and welcome to share it.
You shall make no law establishing it. If you want to ban homosexuality because it's dangerous, you had better show exactly how it is a public health issue or a national security issue.
That is when you are at your most amusing.
Amending constitutions is serious business. We generally do so only when we have problems that the present government can not deal with. Almost always, we do it to expand our rights, not to crack down.
In this case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania already has outlawed gay marriage. It is illegal. If you don't like gay marriage, you should be happy.
However, times may be changing slowly, and the people may be on the way to petitioning their government to change the status quo. At that time we will have a lovely debate, wherein we will utilize this good government that has been handed down to us, and we will come to an answer.
We are now being asked to add an amendment to the Constitution simply to prevent people in the future from making their own decisions? What is the reason? Where is the crisis? What is really going on?
Obviously, there are three strong motivations underlying the push for this legislation:
1. Drive a wedge among Democrats
2. Whip up the Republican base.
3. Lash out at homosexuals.
The PA Marriage Protection Amendment is, at its very best, a cynical ploy to further the politics and policies of a certain portion of today's ideological spectrum.
At its worst, it is a raw and very useless statement of loathing, expressed only for its own sake. It would besmirch the rest of the PA Constitution around it.
Have none of it. Don't touch it.