Pennsylvania lawmakers introduced a bill Tuesday that would create a new amendment to the… Pennsylvania lawmakers introduced a bill Tuesday that would create a new amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to “one man and one woman.”

The Marriage Protection Amendment – sponsored by Rep. Scott Boyd, R-Lancaster, and Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, and 87 other co-sponsors – would also make it so the state of Pennsylvania could not recognize a legal status substantially equal to marriage for unmarried individuals.

Boyd said that if passed, the amendment would clearly define marriage and prevent any uncertainty among the citizens of Pennsylvania.

“I believe that the traditional definition of marriage is what most people in the commonwealth believe that marriage is, that it’s between a man and a woman,” Boyd said. “And if in fact there’s the potential for confusion, then I think it’s certainly incumbent upon the people to make sure their values and their views are expressed clearly from a constitutional standpoint.”

A spokesman for Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance, however, said that the amendment is excessive and unnecessary.

“The amendment is discriminatory, divisive and unnecessary,” Aaron Arnold said. “It is nothing more than a tool being used by Pennsylvania legislators to divide people into strongly opinionated voting blocks.”

Arnold added that Pennsylvania already has laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.

According to the state’s General Assembly’s Web site, in order to be added to Pennsylvania’s constitution, an amendment must pass in both the state House of Representatives and Senate by a majority vote. The amendment is then voted on by the people in the next general election.

The amendment must then be approved again through a majority vote in the General Assembly, before it is voted on one more time by the entire electorate.

Several local Democrats have already lined up in opposition to the proposal.

Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, who is opposed to the amendment, said that passing it sends the message, “You’re not welcome here.”

“The fact of the matter is, if you look around at vibrant, economically growing communities around the country, they tend to be communities that encourage diversity and promote a tolerant atmosphere,” Frankel added.

Rep. Frank Pistella, D-Bloomfield, said that the amendment to the state constitution would also violate the U.S. constitution.

“I believe that the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution and other portions of the Bill of Rights provide for and allow for an individual to have certain protections,” Pistella said. “And I feel that an attempt to amend the Pennsylvania constitution with this language would undercut those rights.”

Boyd said he is proposing the amendment to take the decision out of the hands of the courts.

“[The courts are] starting to make rulings that are contrary to the legislative code,” Boyd said. “And ultimately, I think that that’s prudent for the people to consider amending their constitution.”

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute – a non-profit, conservative research organization – agrees.

“A judge can’t change the constitution,” he said, adding that he believes most Pennsylvanians agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

“We believe that the institution of marriage, which currently in Pennsylvania is the union of one man and one woman, is in threat of being redefined in other courts,” he said. “Ultimately we’re saying the people should decide this issue, not some judge.”

Boyd added, “[The people] have the right to alter their government when they feel it’s not conformed to their will. I mean, what is a government? It’s we, the people.”

Frankel said, however that the new amendment will also “affect heterosexual couples that choose to live together,” a claim Boyd denies.

Boyd said that there is no language in the amendment that would prevent same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

“It just says that [the same-sex] relationship isn’t a marriage,” Boyd said.

Arnold disagrees.

“The language of the amendment is vague enough that it even threatens domestic partner benefits of all Pennsylvania residents and the future establishment of civil unions,” he said.

According to Boyd’s Web site, amendments prohibiting same-sex unions are in effect in 19 other states.

Jim Sheppard, the director of membership of the Steel City Stonewall Democrats, said the amendment could ultimately affect Pitt.

“Pitt won’t be allowed to give domestic partner benefits,” said Sheppard, who is also the director of the College Democrats.

Arnold views the issue as a case of religious beliefs interfering too much with Pennsylvania law.

“Religions have every right to make their own rulings whether they will support same-sex ceremonies or not,” he said, “but law, however, should be blind to the influences of religion.”

He added, “The legal and religious aspects of marriage are two very separate entities and should be considered as such by our lawmakers.”

Frankel described the contents of the amendment as outrageous.

“To use [the constitution] to take away rights of law-abiding citizens – simply intolerable from my standpoint,” he said.

But Geer insists that marriage between a man and woman says that both men and women are important to the family.

“Marriage, historically defined, is about bringing the sexes together, and that is good,” Geer said. “Same-sex marriage is segregating the genders, and we think that is bad.”

Pistella echoed Frankel’s outrage.

“This is obviously a very, very sensitive and controversial issue, and I just think it’s unfair that men and women in our society will end up becoming victimized by this,” Pistella said. “I see it as nothing more than an effort on the part of some people to create an issue where, in my opinion, one should not exist.”

Boyd said he hopes that the proposal of this amendment will get students talking and more involved.

“I would certainly hope that it stimulates conversation and dialogue and certainly would motivate students to be involved in the political process,” Boyd said, “because that’s a core foundation to our system of government.”

Arnold said the amendment could be on the ballot for the people to decide by 2007 at the earliest, if each of the steps preceding that is successful.