At least for now, the Legislature has stopped trying to save the institution of marriage from an imagined threat. It has stopped picking on the few on behalf of the many and has stopped wasting its time and that of the taxpayers.

Because marriage in Pennsylvania is already defined as the union of one man and one woman -- due to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- the effort to pass a constitutional amendment to make the same point was always pointless. The idea that activist judges might overturn existing law in this socially conservative state never deserved to be taken seriously.

But the supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment -- Senate Bill 1250 -- were serious and obsessed. Despite angry opposition expressed at committee hearings and a rally last week, the sort of resistance that comes from Americans whose government seems out to deny them rights and treat them as second-class citizens, the amendment's backers seemed ready to push on.

Then, fortunately, reality set in. If the Senate had passed the measure, it would have faced strong opposition in the House. On Tuesday, the bill was tabled, with its main sponsor signaling it may come back some time in the future. If it does, it will return with the claim that this isn't bigotry wrapped in a cloak of morality but an attempt to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Of course, this campaign at its heart was always about discrimination. The dead giveaway was the inclusion of language extending the same-sex ban to "the functional equivalent of marriage," which one doesn't have to be an activist judge to interpret as civil unions. Banning civil unions would have nothing to do with preserving the sanctity of marriage. It would have everything to do with a powerful majority imposing its will on a vulnerable minority.

As for the sanctity of marriage, the theoretical threat of committed gays is nothing compared with the real damage done to marriage by divorcing heterosexuals. On this, of course, SB 1250 was hypocritically silent.

To call the bluff of the amendment's supporters, Sen. Vince Fumo, the Democrat from Philadelphia, stood ready to introduce an amendment banning divorce in most cases. This poison pill would have soured the sanctimonious appetite very quickly.

Pennsylvania doesn't have to write bias into its constitution to counter a nonexistent threat fueled by imaginary fears. At least irrationality and prejudice have been resisted. But the cheering should be limited because so much time was spent on a ridiculous issue while real ones go begging.