CommunityPam's House Blend

The possibility of civil unions in PA is just too much for AFA

“A marriage is the foundation of society. If we can’t see the need to protect that, then we are all in trouble, not only here in Pennsylvania but around the nation.”
— Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of Pennsylvania, going apesh*t over the state’s marriage proposed amendment language, which doesn’t ban civil unions

Even when they do get their way, it’s still not enough for the wild-eyed bible-beating right.

The Pennsylvania House passed more restrictive proposed marriage amendment language — it bans recognition of any domestic partnerships, but the state Senate stripped its bill of of a ban prohibiting civil unions, passing that measure 38-12. For Gramley, this is practically armegeddon, because it means it could take up to two years to get an amendment on the ballot, since both legislative bodies have to reconcile the bill language. Too damn bad. (AgapePress):

And contrary to the arguments of homosexual “marriage rights” advocates, Gramley insists that a constitutional marriage protection amendment is not about discrimination against people in same-sex relationships. “Homosexuals are free to live as they wish, but they are not free to demand that we redefine marriage and family,” she says. [Why yes, it is discrimination! This is why we cannot reason with these people.]

The AFA of Pennsylvania spokeswoman believes homosexual activists view civil unions as a stepping stone to legalized same-sex marriage. She feels the state Senate, by passing a constitutional amendment that bans homosexual marriage but allows civil unions, has opened a door that homosexual activists will undoubtedly exploit to undermine traditional marriage.

Gramley says Pennsylvania senators have abandoned their Christian and pro-family constituents by supporting a constitutional amendment that would allow civil unions to be legalized. The amendment the Senate passed protects the word “marriage” but not the institution, the activist contends. For one-man, one-woman marriage truly to be protected, she says, any state marriage protection amendment must deal with both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

These extremists have convinced themselves that these onerous moves to “save marriage” don’t represent bigotry in their minds, even though the goal extends beyond “protecting” religious marriage, or even civil marriage. It’s really about negating the value of gay and lesbian relationships period. Given the chance, they would recriminalize homosexuality again, and have us return to the closet en masse.

Previous post

Incomprehensible Demoralization

Next post

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding