Groan. I made the mistake of checking out the AFA of PA site, as administered by Diane "Whack Job" Gramley, noted regional shrew and shrieking virago par excellence.
"Whack Job" has her dowdy drawers in a bunch over the fact that PA Senate Bill 1250 was tabled in the Senate when it was clear it wouldn't make it through the House.
"Whack Job" notes that Erie's Senator, Jane Earll, offered an amendment that would have removed the anti-civil unions language. By the way, about 67% of Pennsylvanians support civil unions, according to a recent survey. She also notes that there was an amendment proposed to the bill that would have banned divorce.
Here's the thing that made my eyes bug out: "Whack Job" is urging everyone to contact their legislator to pass the bill without any amendments, apparently including the one that would ban divorce. Translation: "We are willing to let someone get married multiple times. For us, 'protecting marriage' begins and ends with keeping the queers out!"
If this whole argument is supposed to be about preserving marriage, can I point out that divorce definitely ends a marriage? Can I also point out that most people do not evaluate the worth of their relationships by examining the relationships of others, including people that they don't know? The same brilliant minds that didn't get the story about Jody Foster, David Hyde Pierce or Lily Tomlin somehow have their marriages threatened by what others are doing. If someone's marriage is threatened by some other relationship between another, then the marriage wasn't strong to begin with. This argument that the religious right offers effectively works out to "straight people are so dumb that they can't even be trusted to remember what gender they are attracted to." Give me a break!
You know, if people would pay nearly as much attention to their own "morality" as they do to everyone else's, well, there'd probably be much less to guffaw about with regard to politicians and religious leaders, no?