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 ---