From Tuesday's Post-Gazette.  Always good to read a hit-the-nail-on-the-head letter.

Like letter writer Kim Winbush ("Let's Keep Discrimination Out of the Pa. Constitution," May 16), I too was happy to see the Pennsylvania Senate table the Marriage Protection Amendment.

This brazen attempt to pander to the theocratic aims of the religious right must be opposed by all who cherish the freedoms of our secular nation.

Would that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court follow the excellent example of the California Supreme Court ("Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in California," May 16).

AMESH A. ADALJA, MD
Butler

Amen!

What's good news for Californian queers may mean the battle over same-sex marriage heats up again in Pennsylvania as the anti-gay marriage amendment backers put on the pressure to revive that legislation.

They argue that predictions of courts overruling state DOMA laws has come true and call the Pennsylvania House to gird their loins for battle.

Not so quick.  Michigan's Supreme Court just ruled that a statewide ban means no domestic partner benefits for state employees. In other words, the implications for an amendment about "marriage" could be far reaching.  Regardless of California. 

So what does all this mean for you?  Well, I'd say two things.  First, let's hurrah for our California sisters and brothers. 

Second, maybe you should call your representative in the Pennsylvania House and let them know that you are opposed to the amendment and do not want to see it gain momentum when so much important legislative work remains to be done.  You can find out who represents you via the Equality Advocates website.  It can't hurt to make that call. 

And remember ... a little over 30 days until PrideFest 2008.  Equality Advocates should have a table there.  So will Steel City Stonewall Democrats.  Excellent opportunity to get involved and show them some $$ love to keep their good groove going. 

i

From CNN.com

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

How about that?  We deserve basic civil rights. 

I'm very happy.  We need to keep moving forward here in Pennsylvania, keep working toward expanding our own civil rights.  Keep motivated.  Keep up the pressure and the volume.