More from PG readers on anti-gay marriage amendment

Apparently, I spoke too soon.   Today's Post-Gazette includes a letter to the editor from Nancy Staible of Zelienople, Pennsylvania Director of Concerned Women for America.  Ms. Staible rambles on about children needing two parents and the fact that married couples are wealthier and less prone to injury.  After reading her letter 4 or 5 times, I still don't understand why a constitutional amendment will strengthen marriage.  If the goal is wealth and children, perhaps the women should be more concerned about creating jobs, improving healthcare, reforming taxes and maybe a bit of attention for daycare and education services. 

On the bright side, Jason Feldstein of Squirrel Hill distinguishes civil from sacramental marriage. “If we value freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, then the answer is clear; if you have a problem with same-sex marriages, join a church that refuses to perform them. Even stand in the street and preach about the evils of homosexuality, if you like — that's your constitutional right. But keep your paws off other people's civil liberties.”

Kudos to Mr. Feldstein for actually making a rational argument. 


We need your help to save the blog.

For 18+ years,  snowflakes, social justice warriors, and the politically correct have built this blog.

Follow us on Twitter @Pghlesbian24 and Instagram @Pghlesbian

We need your ongoing support to maintain this archive and continue the work. Please consider becoming a patron of this blog with a recurring monthly donation or make a one-time donation.       This post and/or others may contain affiliate links. Your purchase through these links support our work. You are under no obligation to make a purchase.