How Do You Stop an Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment?

[canis_lupus]

from columnist Dan Savage:

By asking straight people to sacrifice something to protect the sacred sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Earlier this week the state legislature in Pennsylvania was preparing to place an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Pennsylvania state constitution before voters in that state. Then a state senator, Vincent Fumo (D-Philadelphia), introduced an amendment-to-the-amendment that wound up sinking PA’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.

His amendment would “outlaw the dissolution of most marriages in Pennsylvania,” he said in a news release. That would mean there would be few legal ways for the divorce of a married couple, a man and a woman. Mr. Fumo, who leaves the Senate on Nov. 30, said the stated goal of Senate Bill 1250 is to “protect the sanctity of the marital institution” by defining a legal marriage as only between one man and one woman. The next logical step, according to Mr. Fumo, is to also outlaw divorces…

The state senate in Pennsylvania is controlled by Republicans, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette reports that Fumo’s amendment didn’t have a chance. But Fumo’s amendment would have to be debated, and PA’s family values crusaders didn’t want to engage in a debate about divorce—currently a purely heterosexual institution in PA—and how straight divorce undermines the totally sacred sanctity of the institution of marriage. It’s way easier for sanctimonious lawmakers to point their ring fingers at same-sex marriage, which is currently illegal in PA (if not unconstitutional), and blame people that have done no harm to the sacred sanctity of the institution of marriage for all the damage done by heterosexuals.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/how_to_stop_an_antigay_marriage_amendmen

[mac2]

1. Let religious organizations decide if they want gay "marriages"

or not.

The state should have only "union contracts" between same and different sex people. If a couple wants to have both a marriage and union contract than that is their choice.

A divorce of a marriage and/or a union contract can be legal under the present law.

Why is this such a difficult decision?

[Fearless]

4. How about letting people have what they want. A name is a name is a name.

[BOSSHOG]

2. How could all the good christians in this country

who are so for the sanctity of marriage (just ask them) possibly be opposed to outlawing divorce? Could it be that they are hypocritical, hateful swine?

[unpossibles]

3. of course!

Just like how they can be "pro life" yet also not be against IVF or the death penalty or attempts to use diplomacy before war.