BCT Editorial – 3/23/08

This page was last updated on March 24, 2008.

A gay time; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 23, 2008.

Among all the issues listed in the editorial as being more important than the proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, which issue was conspicuous by its absence? It was the Times lobbying effort against smoking on private property, of course. Since March 2005, the Times has published at least 30 editorials calling for government bans on smoking on private property. If this issue was so important to the Times to justify at least 30 editorials in three years, why didn’t it make the cut for this editorial? I’m sure we all know the reason.

FYI, here’s the relevant section of the subject Senate bill (No. 1250, Session of 2008) the Times is worked up about. “No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.”

Let’s look at the comment “What better way to throw red meat at the right than to go after homosexuals. [sic]” I didn’t know that defining marriage was “going after homosexuals” or that defining marriage was strictly an issue of “the right.” In any case, if you check the roll call vote, you’ll find three of the five Democrats on the committee voted for the proposed amendment and two of the nine Republicans opposed it.

The Times and its fellow travelers would like us to believe only the evil right supports so-called “defense of marriage” amendments/bills, but the facts tell a different story. As I noted in a 2004 critique, “In the 2004 election, 11 states had ‘defense of marriage’ amendments on the ballot. All 11 amendments passed with significant majorities (maximum of 86%, minimum of 57%, 8 passed with 66% or greater), even in ‘blue’ states. Amendments don’t pass with these majorities without significant Democrat voter support.”

Using the logic (“Everyone else is doing it.”) employed by the Times on issues it supports (like government bans on smoking on private property), why not do the same here?