Let’s preserve the union of man and woman
February 26, 2008
Pennsylvania is faced with the prospect of radically having the definition of marriage changed without voters having the opportunity to weigh in on the matter.
 Those who support the idea that marriage should mean anything and everything are the most opposed to the idea that Pennsylvania citizens should have the opportunity to define marriage. Why not let the citizens of the state make that determination?
 The latest polling says that even those who don’t completely support the majority who define marriage as the union of man and woman only, still want the people to have the final say!
 Let the people vote.
 -Pa for Marriage
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE FAMILY AND CIVILIZATION ITSELF COULD BE JEOPARDIZED IN THE WAY. I PRAY THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE THE MORALS TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY UNIT AS GOD MEANT FOR IT TO BE. LET’S WAKE UP WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME. MARRIAGE IS MEANT TO BE ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND NO OTHER SITUATION IS ACCEPTABLE!
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Yes…and let’s hope that enough people vote not for discrimination but in favor of allowing anyone INCLUDING Homosexuals to marry.
My comment to all heterosexual people who are afraid of allowing gay couples to marry: Instead of spending all your time fighting against gay couples who want to marry, perhaps spend some time looking at how you can bring more love into your own life and family. Perhaps you’ll find that through filling your own life with love that everyone deserves the same opportunity you have. Don’t take this for granted.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The only thing that Pennsylvania is facing is the possibility of having discrimination written into the State Constitution. As of now, there are no bills that would allow same-sex marriage. In fact, PA already has a DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law on the books, making same-sex marriage illegal. Proposing a constitutional amendment is supported by the religious right as a way of legislating their own theocracy, and turning the knife in the wounds of lgbt people.
As far as allowing the citizens of the state decide this, there has never been a time that the majority has seen fit to take care of the minority. My civil rights are not up for a popular vote. That’s why we should not let the citizens of the state decide this important CIVIL RIGHTS decision.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Civilization will be completely fine, I assure you, as will marriage as it now exists. Why is it so threatening for those of us that are in loving, monogamous, interdependent relationships want to have legal validation for it, so that we can embrace the same rights and benefits of marriage? I have been in a loving, committed relationship with a woman for twelve years, we are raising a well adjusted child, and we deserve to be treated fairly and equally. We are persons who live, love, grieve, work, play, and are not “abnormal” as we are often perceived to be. We go to church, and praise and sing to the Lord. Why can we not have our equal rights?
March 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Whether or not one likes homosexuals, one’s personal feelings, and one’s religious background are not at issue here. The only issue is: why does anyone believe that equal treatment under the state’s civil laws merits a popular vote? Besides, with DOMA on the books PA is still a long way from equality in marriage. Why single groups out for discriminatory treatment?
Fair and equitable treatment in the eyes of government must never be left up to a popularity contest. If we can do this to one group, who is to stop someone from excluding us from equal protection because of some group we belong to that they do not happen to appreciate (such as our religion, race, etc.) ?
March 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
In answer to the question, “Should Pennsylvania walk out on marriage?”, my answer is NO! Marriage is the union of one man (male) ond one woman female). LEt’s not change that status by law!!
March 17th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
but Jim, no one is proposing to change that definition at this point. As a matter of fact, PA has a DOMA law (Defense of Marriage Act) making same-sex marriages illegal in PA. This particular website is requesting that PA change its constitution to further discriminate against lgbt people.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
In response to Vanessa: If love and commitment were the criteria to grant the same status as marriage between one man and one woman, then why not give that same status and benefits of marriage not only to same sex people, but to blood relatives who love each other, a man with more than one wife, people who love their pets, etc. The law already prohibits such relationships. We who believe in protecting marriage should not have to defend our position. It is you who must understand that marriage is a sacred covenant between a husband and wife ordained by God and no one has the right to redefine it.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
but Terry,
The government isn’t in the business to promote a particular religion, so marriage must NOT be defined by the church’s dogma. It’s interesting that you also point out that same-sex marriages would lead us down the slippery slope to polygamy, when it’s very clear that God approved of polygamy by blessing so many old testament heroes with many wives. So it appears that God ordained the marriage of a husband and a wife and a wife and a wife……
April 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Definition of marriage.
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
Nuff Said
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I cast my vote to keep marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Terry was doing fine in defense of this until it was said ‘marriage is a sacred covenant’ and keltic was right to point out the separation of church and state.
The fact is: marriage is an earlier institution than the state. When the state passes laws that weaken it, then it is assuming a power that it does not rightfully deserve.
Nevertheless, any argument on marriage has to be made from reason or the natural law. And, it goes against reason and nature that a union could ever be completed in a same gendered relationship. The biology simply isn’t there. The pagan virtue of justice demands that every child have the right to come into the world through an act of love between a man and a woman. Any other conception is out of selfishness and certainly doesn’t take the welfare of the child into consideration. How could it when it would deny the child a father or a mother…as nature intended?
The State ought to enact laws that protect the child and the family from anything other than what nature, through right reason, intended.
Matt Wolfe tried to make the argument into one of discrimination. Well, nature discriminates between who and what can conceive. Having said that, the law doesn’t discriminate because Matt has the right to marry too…provided it is someone of the opposite gender.
Will an amendment be passed? Probably not because people don’t vote from reason but from feeling and who wants to deny a loving couple? They don’t see the fraud in justice to the child, to the family and to the nation.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
With the California Supreme Court ruling to overturn what a majority of California citizens voted on, I think it proves that PA’s DOMA is not sufficient.
The PA Constitution is going to be changed- by unaccountable activist judges or by the people of PA through the amendment process.
This is not a radical idea- marriage to be between one man and one woman. To claim that marriage is something other than one man and one woman would be a radical change in the definition of marriage. Why would you write radical family redefinition into the Constitution?
June 14th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
1 Corinthians 14:13 Three things will last forever- faith, hope, and love- and the greatest of these is love. This comes out of the Bible itself. Everything revolves around love, because love came first. Of course, why not, I mean God is love right? And God wanted us in his/her own image…but didn’t God make woman and man…So what image are we… or maybe it’s that God doesn’t have a gender. Then in what way are we in his own image…wouldn’t the answer be simple if we opened our minds and learned to love each other like true Christians should. The human soul. That is what we fall in love with. It’s not appearance or gender. God made us how we are straight, gay, lesbian, bi. It doesn’t matter, because God loves every single one of us. If you’re going against how he made us aren’t you going against him? Well I believe in love, and that’s what I thought marriage was all about. I thought marriage was about happiness and love…what happened…
-Matthew
June 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Love is not what marriage is all about. I did a search online for the definition of marriage and here are the first few definitions I received:
- state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as hunband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship.
- institution in which interpersonal relationships are sanctioned with governmental, social, and religious recognition.
- stabilized patterns of norms and roles associated with the mutual relationship between husband and wife.
None of those definitions use ‘love’ because love is not the definition of marriage. It is a socially recognized contract between two people of the opposite sex. I agree that God loves every single one of us. That does not mean that marriage should be defined as love. If it did, marriage then is defined as a union between brother and sister, one man and three women….God ordained marriage to be between husband and wife.