(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F216.128.12.36%2Fsites%2Fgoerie%2Fassets%2Fh_logo.jpg&hash=52b2ff7862a2b49d6e307130d8cc80e735cd0e34) (http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/OPINION01/805200363/-1/OPINION)
QuoteThe 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That is state law. Pennsylvania judges haven't written many opinions that could stir fears that the state judiciary might rule this law unconstitutional. There is little support in the state House for the legislation, primarily because it could be justifiably seen as formally discriminating against an entire minority group -- gay, lesbian and transgender citizens.
The reason it's so difficult to take supporters of Senate Bill 1250 at their word -- that a constitutional amendment is the best way to protect the sanctity of marriage -- is because it looks like a thinly veiled attempt to permanently ban civil unions between members of the same sex.
So, how did transgenders get lumped in with the 'same sex' issue?