|
by Dr. Ada M. Fisher
The failure of the US
Senate to pass the Marriage Amendment speaks poorly for legislator’s
appreciation for this institution, which goes to the heart of society’s
underpinnings. The rhetoric calling this an anti-gay marriage debate is off
base. The Marriage Amendment should simply state that “Marriage is the
union of one man and one woman at one time.” This statement recognizes
that many people may want to unite and may per state laws, but as for this
nation, marriage will be more than a civil union, it will also be protected.
Those who see this as
a gay marriage issue are trying to shift the action to an emotional arena
where everyone has a position many of which may differ from common societal
practices. On this issue of marriage, we should be as concerned about
polygamy (more than one wife that some renegade branches of Mormons
practice), sects and cults whose relationships are questioned, bigamist who
have serial unions at the same time, “common law marriages” and for some
polyandry where one woman may have more than one husband. This then says
all of these as well as other non-traditional culture patterns are not
acceptable in this democratic society and will not have legal protections.
The Marriage Amendment
if put in the framework of one man and one woman at one time will do much to
protect the rights of parties so involved, provide legal shelter for
children and necessitate reform of state laws to look at antiquated statues
on marriage. Married women who have often not benefited economically from
marriage, divorced persons often long without legal redress, children
thereby get unfettered rights and other attendant legal issues will then
have protections under the law which will give state legislatures work and
opportunities for new reasoned family policies. If states then decide on
civil unions or other relationships, which may cost a bundle in benefits to
industries, which are already leaving our borders, they will have no
political cover. If judges waver from things not in the constitution, then
the validity of their rulings may be called into question.
One side note: It is
ironic that the number of people who are not heterosexual in their
orientation wanting sanctioned unions is rising while the numbers of males
and females marrying is going down. The numbers of children born out of
wedlock though decreasing is still too high. They will need legal shelter
and maybe this amendment will put some starch and commitment in parents to
do the right thing by all of their children.
When government
officials don’t support basic institutions, something is wrong in our logic
and thinking.
I do not know what course others may take, but as for me, I’ll keep waiting
for Prince Charming to come along while by passing a few toads. | 
