Three letters in today's Post-Gazette, two for gay rights and one for gay oppression.  Still no letters in the Tribune-Review.

Proud papa Edward Walkowski of Brookline simply wants his lesbian daughter and her partner to have equal rights. Edward recognizes the true political agenda of the Amendment supporters:

The political leaders pushing this amendment are nothing but political opportunists and hypocrites -- political opportunists because, by taking advantage of fears, prejudices and ignorance, they would hope to create a wedge issue that would aid their own political aims, and hypocrites because if they were truly concerned with protecting marriage and the family, they would attempt to legislate against divorce and to legislate for pre-marriage testing to ensure that couples would be stable partners and parents.

Lorette Barone of Point Breeze makes another simple point, namely that gay marriage won't impact her marriage.  Nor will it protect anyone else's marriage.

Kudos to Bruce Kraus ("Gay Marriage in Pennsylvania," April 27 Forum). I have no idea how exactly the anti-gay marriage amendment will "strengthen marriage" -- an institution that has been in decline everywhere without any help from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community and lots of help from educational, religious and legislative bodies.

I do know that GLBT people marrying will have no impact on my 45-year marriage. The adoption of the amendment will disenfranchise a host of my fellow citizens who -- constitutionally -- share all the rights and privileges that I enjoy... well, almost, but not quite because they're... you know.

On the other hand, Nancy Staible of Zelienople believes marriage is the answer.  Nancy is an old friend of the letters page.

Contrary to the attitude shared by several of the senators hosting the hearing, I think the people of Pennsylvania do understand what marriage is, what it is not and why we need to protect this bedrock of our society. I would venture to say that every member of those listening to or offering testimony, whether supporting or opposing the amendment, was born as a result of the union of one man and one woman and understand the value of marriage.

That's probably not true.  There's a range of possibilities. I speak hypothetically because I don't know who was there or the circumstances of their conception.  Someone may have gay parents.  Someone may be the result of artificial insemination. Another could have been conceived as a result of sexual assualt or incest.  I'm guessing a few were born to teenagers who didn't understand the consequence of their actions.  Nancy and her ilk rarely mention those circumstances.  Getting married because you "have to" is not the same thing as entering a loving union with full intent and commitment.

The limited role of government in our representative republic is to establish and maintain laws that are determined to be best for the country and its people. Marriage over time has been shown to be the gold standard for raising children, socializing men and women, building a strong economy and providing for healthy, long lives.

Also, not true.  Research has shown that two parent families have strengths for children, but that gay parenting is little different than heterosexual parenting.  If anything, it is the constant barrage against the gay community that is hurting our children.

Just this week, we see a newlywed couple who beat the hell out of each other and bystanders on the day of their wedding.  What economic contribution does that make?  It drains resources because of the need for police and judicial intervention. 

Staible deludes herself that marriage is some sort of magic bullet to cure social woes.  So why doesn't she turn her attention to the aspects of existing marriages that aren't working so well?  Why not help women who are being battered by their spouses have better supports have healthy, long lives?  Why not strengthen safety net resources so financial hardships don't destroy marriages?  Why not address healthcare so families aren't forced to remain unmarried so women and children can access publicly funded healthcare because their male partners' business doesn't offer a family plan?  There are tons of things Nancy could do.

If she really cared about marriage.