POLL: Would You Vote in Favor of a Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriages and Civil Unions in PA? (Penn: wedding, tax)

[SteelCityRising]

Given all of the heated racial tensions that have been occurring late in my part of the state, I was just curious to see what the outcome would be if proposed legislation to create an amendment to the state constitution that would permanently ban same-sex marriages and civil unions in the Keystone State makes it to the polling booths in 2009 or 2010. Since I don't want to see Yac close this thread prematurely or move it to "Politics & Other Controversies," where very few PA residents frequent, please keep comments respectful. I know the liberals in the cities might clash with the conservatives in the suburbs and rural areas, but please disagree with civility.

[SteelCityRising]

Feel free to vote for as many options as you'd like. Also, be aware that I made this a public poll just to make sure that out-of-staters wouldn't skew the results of this poll one way or another if we had an influx of liberals or conservatives from urban or rural states. I want to see how Pennsylvanians would react to this on voting day. You shouldn't feel intimidated for voting in any way nor should you intimidate others for their beliefs. Thank you.

[SteelCityRising]

I'll also start by clarifying why I voted as I did. As a gay person, I would not like to vote in favor of an amendment that would limit my civil rights. However, I would be quite content living in PA if voters passed a version of the amendment with language that prohibited same-sex marriage but still permitted same-sex civil unions. As a Christian myself, I have long and often struggled with coming to terms with how my sexual orientation might make me look inferior in the eyes of God, so I can see how fellow Christians could be justified in voting against same-sex marriage. However, I truly don't understand how someone, regardless of moral or religious beliefs, could be opposed to same-sex civil unions, which would only be recognized by the state (not by God) and would in no way detract from the quality of heterosexual couples' marriages. After all, if I'm on the path to hell for being the way I am, then I don't see how anyone else outside of my partner and I would be dragged down there with me for joining in a civil union. I suppose that's what's been confusing me the most about opposition to civil unions. I mean, if heterosexuals will bear no moral punishment for this, then why be so vehemently opposed to it?

[norm]

Whose business is it if two people want to get married?

[michiganmoon]

I didn't vote, because I am not a Pennsylvanian. However, Michigan had it on the ballot awhile back and I couldn't vote in favor of the ban on gay marriage, however, it did win.

You have to put some limits on marriage, for instance you can't have some guy marrying his car because he loves it more than life itself, or some girl marrying her pregnant cat so she can use the kittens as tax dependents to save money! :-)

Joking aside, I think that 2 legal adults should be allowed to marry. I don't think the concept of polygmy is practical legally so I'll limit it at 2 legal adults and I also think that one should be an adult before they make a huge decision like marriage - so one should be 18, when at least your mind and world view is more developed.

I can not in good faith, in a world where love can be so hard to find tell one person that he or she must forsake their love and any potential marriage simply because it is against my personal preference.

[ontheroad]

I am feeling dense tonight. The way you've set up the poll appears somewhat confusing.

So, here's my answer and then I'll vote:

I am in favour of same-sex marriage and/or civil unions. Unions and marriages should be a personal and not a government issue.

[Lehigh Valley Native]

I'll keep it brief. Same sex marriage is a no, however, same sex civil unions should be allowed with all the benefits of marriage. If people were rational and willing to compromise, this would be no-brainer.

[kpoeppel]

I suppose if birth control had not yet been invented, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Pre Birth-Control:

sex = children = family = the basic unit of social organization for raising the next generation
(thus, marriage = legal institution critical for maintaining society)

Post Birth Control:

sex = recreation + unwanted children - aborted unwanted children
(thus, marriage = an outdated stuffy white-bread institution in need of redefinition)

[Marodi]

The government should give marriges, they should give civil unions. If you want marrige, go to a religious institution.

Civil Union = Secular institution
Marrige = Religious institution

[norm]

Marodi,

Excellent idea. I see no difference between a civil union and a marriage since both are legal acts. Many people get married via civil ceremonies without having a religious wedding.