I know I'm beating a lonely drum on this.  I have been informed that the Pittsburgh Democratic Senators voted in favor of the marriage protection amendment.  I've also been informed that I'm being a bit of whiny bitch for not congratulating them like the mainstream LGBT political groups are doing. 

I get that the groups have to play politics.  But last time I checked, I'm allowed to have my own opinions.  And I opine these are yet another bunch of spineless Democrats who want to have their cake and eat it, too. Its sheer genius really - a vote in favor of the watered down amendment keeps the homos all happy while giving them the ability to say that they voted to uphold traditional marriage. 

It is a political solution designed to keep their social moderate voters happy and keep them in office.  Keeping the constitution of Pennsylvania free from discrimination is ancillary to the overall plan. 

And when I disagree, object, complain, speak out, speak up or speak my mind (NOT A MIND!), I get the brush off b/c I'm not a good little girl who plays nice with the boys. 

Honey, if I wanted to play nice with the boys, I wouldn't need to worry about the definition of marriage. 

So we narrowly avoid the amendment (hopefully).   Now we'll continue to avoid naming the propensity of Pennsylvania Democrats to treat my life, my relationship and my civil rights as political trading cards.

Roll call should be out tomorrow.

The Senate stripped the language prohibiting civil unions and passed the legislation 38-12. Now the amended amendment heads back to the House for approval. 

The wingnuts are up in arms about the changes, believing that permitting civil unions is marriage by another name which discredits the entire attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage from homosexual assault (PG). 

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the "weaker" language of the Senate bill "won't give Pennsylvanians an opportunity to effectively defend the institution of marriage."

He claimed that civil unions "are marriages, for all intents and purposes," more often used by same-sex couples, and said both civil unions and gay marriages should be outlawed.

So some folks voted against it b/c it was too weak, while others voted against it b/c it was discrimination.

This is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I know the odds are very much against the two chambers passing the same bill by next Friday.  Which is a win for our side

But the issue still remains that some Democrats voted FOR the amendment in the first place.  Which demonstrates that there are too many spineless legislators who would sell us out -- sell our families out --- sell our civil rights out --- to pander to the right wing nutjobs.   

Still looking for roll call to identify said spineless cowards ... will post as soon as I find it.