Gay marriage, the hot-button issue that divided and united Americans in 2004’s election, is… Gay marriage, the hot-button issue that divided and united Americans in 2004’s election, is once again on the agenda. This time, however, it hits extraordinarily close to home.

If you’ve signed a petition opposing something recently, chances are it had something to do with the Marriage Protection Amendment, a newly proposed bill in Pennsylvania that seeks to clearly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Introduced by Rep. Scott Boyd, R-Lancaster, and co-sponsored by an army of nearly 90 representatives, the amendment would also ensure that gay couples that enter into civil unions are not recognized and thus not eligible for health benefits.

Besides the growing suspicion that the proposition is tied to election-year politics, the movement to ban gay marriage appears to be linked to the fear of what will be next if gay marriage becomes a reality in America. With everything from polygamy to bestiality being mentioned, so many things are distracting politicians from what lies at the core of importance: denying benefits to American citizens through what we call democracy.

But how can such a blatant act of discrimination actually be approved through the democratic process? Well, after all, officials that are pushing this bill forward are going through the motions of the system. Our representatives following this protocol are there because we indeed voted them in.

And if after two-year sessions and a statewide referendum the Marriage Protection Amendment comes to pass, it will be unfair, discriminatory even, but it will be under the democratic system.

In the past, the democratic process has also yielded amendments that have banned marriages between African-Americans and interracial marriages. As views changed, policy changed. Thus the problem we face in legalizing gay marriage is not just the system, but also the antiquated views of our decision makers.

Long before gay marriage, however, decision making was motivated by personal ideology, what is best for the constituents and what is in line with the Constitution. Regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment, it still remains to be seen whether it is even constitutional.

While some conservative red states are taking measures similar to that of Pennsylvania, other states have passed legislation in direct opposition. While Washington state hasn’t gone so far as to legalize gay marriage, they have added “‘sexual orientation’ to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment and insurance, making Washington the 17th state passing a law covering gays and lesbians,” according to an article released by the Associated Press.

But it seems that generational turnover is something we can all look forward to. Our generation has the potential to be more accepting than our predecessors of two people of the same sex who love each other. Since this is the case, we can be hopeful that the Marriage Protection Amendment legislated or immediately overturned is nothing more than a speed bump on the way to something more progressive.