Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Our opinion:?Two sides of Tom Corbett

December 19, 2013
sort: oldest | newest




Dec-26-13 7:19 PM

The slipper slope argument may be "old", but it is playing out in the 21st. Century ie. Utah and other states.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-21-13 12:52 AM

Frugaltaxpayer says "many still have religious beliefs and do not agree with the editors point of view" and that the "federal government is starting to punish those that are married."

Treating gay people equal under the law is not "punishing" anyone. It's way past time for religious people (in particular, conservative Christians) to understand that their personal beliefs aren't the law and our civil society is based on the Constitution.

Dudebit: as quiensabe said, the 14th Amendment came after the 9th and 10th Amendments and the states can no longer deny the equal protection of the law.

FatherJohn: the slippery slope argument is so old it's hardly worth a response.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-21-13 12:25 AM

Marriage equality: be careful what you wish for. To be equal for one group of people opens it up for all groups: polygamy, men and girls, women and boys, first cousins, etc. Anything goes including the foundation of our society.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-20-13 9:28 AM

What really disappoints me about Mr Corbett is he KNEW about Sandusky at Penn State and as Attorney General mr corbett did NOTHING.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-19-13 1:04 PM

dubedit, think Amendment 14 and the equal protection clause.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-19-13 12:56 PM

It's interesting to me that trying to determine the level of bigotry the public will tolerate is a legislative issue. I'm also fascinated with some folks "interest" in homosexuality. They hate it so much that they can't stop thinking about it. Hmmm.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-19-13 12:03 PM

The editor misses the point that there are TWO principles at issue in this federal lawsuit: 1. The no-gay-marriage law as written; 2. The right of Pennsylvania to make its own laws without interference from the feds on matters not delegated by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government. Think "Amendments 9, 10." This lawsuit absolutely ought to be defended, even while the governor and Legislature work to change it. The feds should butt out. We're adults here in Pennsylvania, and can write our own laws without federal court interference or pinko-liberal politically correct idiots trying to force us to do what they want.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-19-13 9:44 AM

Maybe I'm a little confused at the Editors point. Corbett, no I'm not a great fan of, wants to make sure all in the gay community are not discriminated against under all current laws. The editor would have us believe that this should include marriage also. Many still have religous beliefs and do not agree with the editors point of view. And in reality, the way the federal government is starting to punish those people that are married, but that's another story that is not being covered by the media, I'm not so sure Corbetts not doing them a favor in the long run.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-19-13 9:05 AM

The two sides of Tom Corbett are Jeckyl and Hyde. And it's not just with the equality issue.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web