In response to the Post-Gazette's two-thirds hearted opposition to the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, two of the amendment's sponsors took the time to whine about the PG's mischaracterization of their bill.  You've heard it all before, but since the PG has been parsimonious in covering this issue of late, I'll take a stab at it.

State Senator Bob Regola (R-Hempfield) and State Senator Scott Boyd (R-Lancaster) have seen a future filled with married homos and it scares the living hell out of them:

No one can legitimately claim that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act will not be challenged in court. The testimony of gay-marriage advocates in Harrisburg confirms it is not a matter of if, but when. Prominent individuals from the ACLU and other organizations believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. Knowing there is little chance of accomplishing that goal legislatively, using the court to achieve this legislative agenda becomes an attractive tool.

They take to task stout-hearted fellows like Dan Frankel who have been pointing out that this legislation might actually hurt tens of thousands of unmarried heterosexuals, but Bob and Scott assure us that won't happen -- their crusade against homos won't have collateral damage.  Doesn't that sound familiar? 

And they call out those tricky legislators who took the political route to compromise the full degree of hate and fear that was embedded in the original bill.

Opponents are aware of this and have repeatedly tried to dilute the amendment in both the state House and Senate. A vote to weaken the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment by allowing civil unions is a vote that will kill the effort to protect marriage in this legislative session.

You are either for the original amendment or you hate freedom.   Something like that. 

These guys suck.