He, did anyone ever have to vote on any marriage amendment in their state, provice, country, etc.?
We had one in the state of Virginia a few years back. While looking for the letter to the editor from my old philosophy professor, I found one I wrote concerning that amendment.
November 21, 2006
Dear Editor,
It’s been over two weeks since the majority of Virginians voted for the “Marriage Amendment” and yet I am still reading opinions both for and against it in the Daily Press. Well, I may as well add my two cents to the pot. Personally, I did not vote for the amendment, but not because I am pro-gay marriage or anti-straight marriage. It is because I saw very little about it that actually helps marriage. Everyday before the election, as I was coming home from work I would pass by this house where the front lawn was littered with signs that say, “Vote YES for Marriage.” But, really, what does this amendment actually do for marriage? It’s kind of comical to see gays and lesbians getting all worked up over wanting to legalize their unions while at the same time it seems that more and more straight people are doing everything they can to do the exact opposite. I can just point to the article entitled, “Report says record number of U.S. births were out of wedlock in ‘05”, appearing on the front page of the Daily Press on November 22, 2006, to illustrate that point. I am not sure exactly how voting yes for this amendment was a “vote for marriage” in this context.
I believe that if we really want to help marriage then we should really look to create policies that actually help married people while at the same time abolish those that work against them. Say what you will about George W. Bush, but the one thing he did get right was his attempt to repeal the marriage penalty on our taxes. It would also help if our welfare system did more to help married people who are down on their luck. Instead they won’t help you unless you’re a single mom “struggling” to support your kids without a father. I don’t mean to pick on the single moms, many of them do indeed struggle and try to make ends meet by themselves. However, when social workers advise married women to divorce their husbands and take the kids with them so that they may qualify for all kinds of government help, something is royally wrong with our system. I’ve heard of two such actual cases, both of them involving married women who tried to apply for food stamps when their husbands got laid off from their jobs. They did not qualify because they were in a two-parent household, talk about an attack on marriage.
I again reflect on that newspaper article that I mention earlier and find myself thinking of some people that I know who are in the very situation that the article speaks of. Women who have children out of wedlock where the fathers are still around and very actively involved in their children’s lives. It’s as if they are actually married, except without the marriage certificate. These people have no real plans to get married, because it’s not economical for them to get married. Why should they get married and be forced to pay full price for day care and be required to get insurance for their children on their own the way married couples are required to do? Why should they, when they can pretend to be married without the legal contract and have the government provide free day care services through programs like Head Start and get their insurance coverage through Medicaid or Famis, all at the expense of the taxpayer? Again, how did voting for the “marriage amendment” help that?
I can go on but I believe I made my point, if this amendment was about saving marriage then it should’ve contained something designed to actually help it. Instead, this amendment was little more than the latest “flavor of the day” hot button issue designed to rile up the conservative base. It seems pretty hypocritical to put forward this amendment as an attempt “save marriage” when we’ve done so little before to actually save it. Let’s first talk about ways to actually save marriage and work on making policy changes that are actually pro-marriage and do away with policies that work against it. Then we can talk about whether or not marriage should be limited to just one man and one woman.
