Comments on: A Little Latrobe Trivia

By: Fred Monk

Fred Monk — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:37:01 +0000

It seems to me that even more fundamental than even the legal “stuff” is, what is the DEFINITION of marriage, from the perspective of the dictionary. Will the change of laws change the historic meaning and intent of marriage? I doubt that laws can change the history of the term, “marriage”, nor it’s true definition. In an era of “political correctness” people may WISH that history was different, but marriage has always meant the union of a male and female human, just as “red” has always meant “red” and laws cannot change “red” to mean “green”, or “round”, or “elephant”.

By: Mittu

Mittu — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:42:25 +0000

nice posting i found here,.. thanks for the info

By: Charles Henry

Charles Henry — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:13:17 +0000

It seems to me that the term “marriage” two important aspects. One is the religious aspect. Every religious tradition has its own customs and rules regarding marriage. In the United States we respect every religious tradition and allow its adherents to practice it as they see fit so long as their practices do not interfere with the public well being or safety.
The other aspect of marriage is the legal one. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the rights and responsibilities of the government and the governed. People of whatever sex who choose to be legally married should properly have the same legal rights and responsibilities as anyone else. Under the present system the the religious and legal aspects are equated. Denying same sex couples the same legal rights as enjoyed by other taxpayers is a situation which cries out for change.
I strongly oppose the idea of any amendment defining marriage narrowly as a union of a male and female individuals only.

By: Matthew Wolff

Matthew Wolff — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:17:02 +0000

The civil union is the answer to the need for same sex couples to join together. They want the legal rights associated with a union of two people, so let it be civil and it should be recognized. Let them have all the responsibilities, legal, financial and otherwise that go with two people joining together.

By: Loretta Hruby

Loretta Hruby — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:09:03 +0000

Sounds like you’re speaking for all the people in Latrobe.
Well,you’re not!This girl believes ALL people deserve to love and yes MARRY the person of their choice.

By: Julie Riggs

Julie Riggs — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:06:37 +0000

Hi Eleanor and Christine ~

I saw a large bullentin board on the PA Turnpike while I was heading back to Somerset, PA. I saw the web address and decided to stop by.

I’m not sure if you are trying to encourage heterosexual couples to marry, and stay married, or you were trying to prevent PA from reconizing same sex marriage.

I just thought I’d express my opinion on the latter. My former partner and I fall into a very awkward situation. We have a Vermont Civil Union from Vermont, which PA does not recognize. Personally, I think every state should adopt civil unions across the board and leave the word “marriage” out since it creates a lot of tension with religious conservatives.

It shouldn’t be a state to state decision considering there are gay people in every state, which pay the same taxes as everyone else. It’s somewhat foolish to think that all gay people should reside in CA, VT or MA where their committment to another person is recognized.

My partner and I were also licensed foster parents in Somerset in 2002. My partner got a full time job though, so we decided not to pursue it any longer. It was also difficult for us having children in the home and then they were given back to their families. Sometimes it was too some and they were put back in the system.

I enjoyed reading your site. I’m just not sure what the exact intentions of it are.

Thanks for your time.

Julie