Speed should not be of the essence when contemplating a change to the constitution, the bedrock of principles upon which a democracy is built.

Yet the Republican-controlled state Senate, known for dragging its feet on festering problems Pennsylvanians want fixed — from burdensome property taxes to the high cost of health insurance for the working poor — has put the pedal to the metal in trying to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage once and for all.

Pennsylvania outlawed gay marriage 12 years ago, but some are so put off by same-sex couples getting the protections opposite-sex couples receive just by saying "I do" that they want discrimination etched into the constitution, safe from state Supreme Court justices, those tofu-eating, Volvo-driving subversives.

And just in case the next generation of lawmakers — students now in high school and college who in general are more accepting of gays and lesbians than are their elders — takes a shine to gay marriage, well, they'll face the hurdle of changing the constitution.

Obfuscatory wording

So the Senate has put the gay-marriage ban on the fast track. A month after Lancaster County's own Sen. Mike Brubaker introduced the bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-4 Tuesday, after only one hearing, to send the measure to the full Senate, where quick passage seems likely, it being an election year.

We'll see if the House has the good sense to serve as a speed bump and think through this matter.

The primary effect of the amendment would be to make gays and lesbians second-class citizens. It'll be Pennsylvania's loss when that message of intolerance causes couples to move to states where they're valued.

But beyond the basic unfairness of the proposed amendment is the specter of unintended consequences resulting from the wording of the bill itself.

Brubaker is not content to simply define marriage as between one man and one woman. His bill takes a step beyond that clear definition to say the state will not recognize any union that's "the functional equivalent of marriage."

What does "the functional equivalent of marriage" mean?

Proponents of the bill say the phrase is simply intended to prohibit civil unions — marriage for gays by another name.

But if the "functional equivalent of marriage" means "civil union," then why not say "civil union"? Maybe it's because most Pennsylvanians — 65 percent, according to a recent survey by Susquehanna Polling and Research — support civil unions.

Whatever the reason for choosing the phrase "functional equivalent," once placed in the constitution there's no telling how courts will interpret it.

Lawsuits ahead

Brubaker in a written statement said gay couples would still be able to make medical decisions for ill partners, and employers would still be able to offer benefits to a worker's domestic partner.

But Brubaker's promise wouldn't be binding; the phrase "functional equivalent" would.

It's muddy language that opponents of gay adoption and of government-funded domestic-partner benefits might seize upon as the basis for legal challenges.

Republican Sen. Jane Earll of Erie heard the concerns at a session Monday and said lawmakers in amending the constitution must "make pretty darn well sure" they understand the wording.

But the wording is so vague it could even be used by those who would target benefits enjoyed by cohabiting straight couples, warned Susan Frietsche, senior staff attorney of Women's Law Project in Pittsburgh.

One thing is clear. If the amendment passes, Frietsche predicted Monday, "it's going to be a field day for lawyers."

Reason enough to hit the brakes.

E-mail: jhawkes@lnpnews.com