State Sen. John H. Eichelberger Jr., R-Blair, has introduced a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman, in keeping with plans announced in May.
If his proposal succeeds, it would forestall state courts from striking down Pennsylvania's current ban on gay marriage, as courts in a few other states have done.
"We were going to do it last year, but the budget problems forced us to wait," Eichelberger, R-Blair, said Tuesday.
Opponents dismiss the initiative as discriminatory, distracting, tone-deaf and doomed to fail.
Eichelberger's joint resolution with 15 co-sponsors will need to pass the Senate and House this year during the current legislative term, then - starting from scratch as a bill - both houses again during the next two-year term.
Then a majority of voters would need to approve the one-man, one-woman amendment in a general-election referendum.
"Pennsylvania voters [ought] to have the opportunity to decide how they want marriage to be defined," Eichelberger said. "[An] activist judge [ought not] to make that decision for them."
Voters have passed similar amendments in 31 states, every one where the question made the ballot, Eichelberger said.
That includes heavily Democratic states as well as Republican-leaning ones, said Michael Geer, executive director of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which supports Eichelberger's proposal.
Eichelberger thinks he has "pretty good" odds of ultimate success.
He has the support of key leaders in the Republican-controlled Senate, and voter pressure may convince leaders in the Democrat-controlled House to let the matter come to a vote, he said.
The measure would pass overwhelmingly if it goes to the House floor, Eichelberger aide Jason High said.
If House committee chairs block the amendment, proponents could try to bring the matter to a vote through a discharge petition requiring an initial 25 signatures followed by a full vote of the members and if the petition is successful, then a full vote on the amendment.
The amendment makes sense because marriage between one man and one woman "is what marriage is," Geer said.
It's the way it's been in all cultures, except for the recent gay initiatives "invented in this last millisecond of history," Geer said.
Michael Morrill, executive director of Keystone Progress, doesn't see it that way.
Amendment backers seek to impose a "very narrow" religious definition on others, running counter to the American tradition of expanding rights, he said.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Delaware/Montgomery, who debated Eichelberger on gay marriage last year on a radio show in Philadelphia, said he's never gotten a good answer for the question, "What bad thing will happen" if the state legalizes gay marriage.
Gay marriage opponents say their God doesn't like it, but we don't live in a theocracy, he said.
Opponents say gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage, but none admit that it would damage their own marriages, he said.
Opponents also say gay marriage will put us on a slippery slope leading to practices everyone finds objectionable, Leach said.
But we draw lines all the time; you're allowed to carry a gun, but you're not allowed to transport a truck bomb, for example, he said.
Conversely, lots of good can come from legalizing gay marriage, he said.
It confers a civil right, and incentives for family stability that are especially beneficial for children, he said.
Morrill said the initiative stands little chance of success.
Leaders of both parties don't want to introduce something "this divisive," he said, especially in an election year.
Even if successful, a marriage amendment might be soon moot, because a case in federal court could eventually bring the question of government bans on gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court - whose ruling would take precedence, Leach said.
Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 949-7038.
