In proposing a constitutional ban on gay marriage, can we take state Sen. Mike Brubaker at his word?

On a recent radio program, Brubaker, a Republican from Warwick Township, said that although he is sponsoring a bill to make sure gays can't marry, he has "no negative feeling" regarding homosexuals.

Certainly, none of Brubaker's comments was overtly derogatory, which comes as no surprise. I've never encountered evidence showing him to be a mean-spirited guy.

But no matter how respectful he may be in talking about gays and lesbians, Brubaker's position on same-sex marriage is one that puts down gay people.

Trying to enshrine in the state constitution discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't exactly expressing positive feelings for homosexuals.

A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage would tell committed gay and lesbian couples their relationships are inferior. It would say marriage is too precious for people like you.

Scare tactics

So I wish Brubaker would cut the baloney and admit he finds the idea of same-sex couples living together and adopting and raising children together unsettling.

Instead, Brubaker on the radio came across as a cagey politician.

He said all he's doing is making it possible for the voters to decide if they want gay marriage.

"It's time to take this to the people," he asserted. "If we don't do that now, a court" might reach a conclusion "contradictory to what the average Pennsylvanian desires."

No, we can't trust the justices of the state Supreme Court to soberly consider the civil liberty implications of gay marriage.

The justices might give all parties a fair and impartial hearing and insist on due process. They might look at the law, the facts and the constitution. And they might base a ruling on reason, not fear or prejudice.

How un-American.

Brubaker says we need to ask the voters if they want to amend the state constitution to explicitly define marriage as between "one man and one woman."

Instead of letting judges figure out whether gays and lesbians are being treated unfairly, put it on the ballot. That way the majority gets to flex its muscle.

That's the American way.

Confuse and stir up the public with 60-second TV and radio spots. Employ innuendo and half-truths to appeal to the public's baser instincts. And then put it to a vote. "What I want," Brubaker said on the radio, "is a process that ultimately it will be done by the people of Pennsylvania."

The senator conveniently fails to point out he's in favor of a process that leaves no doubt what will be done.

Lame rationale

Why else propose a constitutional amendment unless you are 100 percent confident a majority of the people will vote the way you want them to vote?

You know, while we're at it, senator, how about we vote on a constitutional amendment exempting right-handed people from paying state taxes. All in favor?

The only positive thing about Brubaker's bill, which is scheduled for a vote Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is it brings anti-gay sentiment out into the open.

People who want to judge a person because of his or her sexual orientation are going to have to explain themselves. Expect to hear a lot about how gay marriage harms children, even though what's eating away at society is the epidemic of heterosexual couples breaking up and leaving children to be raised by a single parent.

Whether Brubaker harbors "negative feeling" toward gays ultimately is beside the point.

What's significant is that at a time when there's so much to be done to move Pennsylvania in a positive direction, Brubaker has chosen to accentuate the negative.

E-mail: jhawkes@lnpnews.com