This week’s decision by state Senate Republicans to table the proposed marriage amendment may just be a lesson in political realism. While they say a majority of Pennsylvanians would support such an amendment should it be put to a referendum, that doesn’t mean a majority of Pennsylvanians want such a referendum. Marriage and just who should be allowed to participate is not a pocketbook issue, and right now with gas soaring towards $4-a-gallon, the price of food ticking upward, the weak dollar and other financial matters at the forefront of our political battles, marriage just isn’t an topic that has traction. Our country’s and state’s financial house is taking precedent before we decide such matters of morality.
As of today, partly because I was out of commission last week, I’m not privy to the discussions and strategizing of the Senate GOP caucus. I do think their explanation - that while the proposed amendment enjoyed success in two Senate committees and undoubtedly would have passed the full Senate, it’s future in the state House was like the victims of Madam DeFarge - is plausible. A failure to bring the amendment to a vote in the Democratically-controlled House after much publicity would make the state GOP appear weak in an presidential election year; better to take it off the table now and chance that Republicans retake the House this fall.
Were there other reasons? Possibly. I would suggest Senate Republicans were well aware of the amendment’s fate in the House when they started this process. It’s not like state Rep. Babette Josephs took the reigns of the House State Government Committee just yesterday.
Michael Geer of Elizabethtown, president of the pro-amendment Pennsylvania Family Institute, told the New Era this week the House Democrats robbed Pennsylvania citizens of their chance to decide for themselves how to define marriage. I would submit first of all it wasn’t the House Democrats but the Senate GOP who decided to table this. Secondly, a man of deep intellect like Geer (and you would be hard pressed to find someone more intelligent and thorough in his reasoning than Geer) should know that in this country and this state we don’t decide many things in a straight vote. Actually, we hardly decide anything. If we did, we would throw off the principles of our Democratic republic, something I believe is very dangerous to do. If such logic would apply, that in this state and country we should do as the majority decides, then Pennsylvania would already have a smoking ban in public places, the Iraq War would have ended at least a year ago and there’s nothing to prevent a mob from making us their subjects.
If this issue is ever to be resolved, these are the questions that need to be answered: If homosexuals are permitted to marry, how does that devalue heterosexual marriage? How does two homosexuals marrying threaten the status of traditional heterosexual marriage? Does gay marriage prevent or infringe the civil and moral rights of heterosexuals to be wed? If not, why is it immoral for gays to marry? If we allow gay marriage, what’s to prevent other forms of marriage - polygamy for example? What about inter-family or arranged marriages?
Something I heard has bugged me for weeks. Peg Luksik of the Pro-Life Coalition of Johnstown delivered to the Appropriations Committee earlier this month testimony that cited health studies for married couples. Among the findings, Luksik cited, were the married men have “more peace of mind,” maried people “live longer” and are less stressed and married women have better cardiovascular health.
I thought the committee, including Democratic state Sen. Vince Fumo who passionately opposes the amendment, failed to ask some relevant questions. If marriage is a key to good health, why are amendment supporters advocating for a piece of legislation that would cut off a segment of Pennsylvania’s population from taking advantage of such health benefits? Are homosexuals doomed to bad health because they shouldn’t be permitted to wed?
There’s a lot of debate on this issue that will have to wait.
