The Senate may vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment on Wednesday.  Here's what the AFA is seeking ... notice that they've not asked for either prayer or fasting ... so much for God's will ... 

ACTION NEEDED: 

1.)  Call your State Senator ASAP and ask him or her to support

 the original language of H.B. 2381 and to reject the Earll

Amendment.  Click here for contact information.   If you do not

know who your State Senator is, please enter your county or

nine-digit zip code in the upper right hand corner of that page

or call Commonwealth Directory Assistance at 717.787.2121. 

Please do not assume that your Senator will support the

Marriage Protection Amendment!  Contact them!

 

2.)  Feel free to forward this alert to other concerned

 Pennsylvanians.  If this alert is being forwarded to you by

a friend, please feel free to sign up by sending an e-mail

 to info@afaofpa.org

 

3.)  Please consider supporting the ongoing work of the

American Family Association of Pennsylvania.  Make

 an online donation.

 

In His service,

 

Diane Gramley

President

American Family Association of PA

You gotta love Mike Seate, columnist for the Tribune-Review.  No matter how carefully he crafts his essentially pro-homo thoughts, he always gets a little jab in there -- just enough to remind us that he is a heterosexual middle class male after all.  For the most part, they are benign and usually amusing.  But I digress ...

Yesterday, Seate took a stab at the gay marriage amendmen furor.  His conclusion?  Gay marriage happens everywhere but the courts and pretty soon state governments will recognize that. 

And that homosexuals are scapegoats right now. 

A point that the wise and wondrous Post-Gazette editorial board glossed over in their passive missive yesterday.

It's an interesting coincidence that as we pass 39 years of legally sanctioned interracial marriage, the Pennsylvania state legislature has been busy approving an amendment that would ban gay marriage.

From Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, there are gay and lesbian couples who've adopted children, cohabited like legally married couples and even enjoyed health benefits from progressive employers. They continue living their lives as married couples even while our lawmakers play to bigoted voters by passing meaningless anti-gay marriage laws.

And he connects gay civil rights with the larger struggle for civil rights (here's the little sparky jab):

Though several lawmakers throughout the union staged public tantrums about having to legalize interracial marriages back in 1967, their fears of a ruined, lawless society never materialized. By the 1990 U.S. Census, one in 33 Americans identified themselves as being of mixed race heritage. By 1995, that number had risen to one in 26.

Better yet, interracial marriage has produced people as stunningly beautiful as Paula Abdul and Shakira, which even the most ardent segregationist has to agree is a positive development.

Ah, Mike.  Your not so bad for a breeder yourself.

From Monday's Post-Gazette comes this rather unimpressive denouncement of the still breathing Pennsylvania legislation on gay marriage (amend the constitution, hurt the homos and the heteros, you remember).

Today is the day we are supposed to see some action in the Senate on the revised bill which would still make gay marriage unconstitutional, but not civil unions.  This bill should reach the floor as early as today.  If it passes, it has to return to the House for passage in its amended form.  The homo-haters and hate-panderers are up in arms at the watered down language of the legislation so what will happen is anyone's guess.

The only solace is that is all has to happen by the end of next week or it goes kapoot (how do you spell kapoot by the way?). 

I'm glad the PG opposes the amendment.  And I'm glad they point out how this could hurt many heterosexual couples b/c frankly that's our best shot at avoiding passage.  Hurting homsexual families doesn't seem to be a concern for our homegrown Democrats so we need to pull out all the possible cards. 

But this editorial reads like a carefully crafted compromise rather than a thoughtful articulation:

This whole amendment is objectionable. That the civil union language was in there at the start proves the lie at the heart of its supporters' claims: This isn't about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage (if it were, it would ban divorce, the real culprit). It is about writing a note of prejudice into the state constitution.

Objectionable?  A note of prejudice?  Was Tony Norman off this day -- who the heck uses phrases like "note of prejudice" over an amendment that would overtly constitutionalize second class status for an entire group of people?  About the violation of our civil rights?  About the fact that we've been here before and it wasn't so good that time around? 

The PG wimped out on this issue.  You'll note they stopped printing letters to the editor on this issue.  Perhaps readers are getting bored?  But isn't that the damn point ---