Marriage amendment

The U.S. Senate last week, by a 48-50 vote, ended this year's debate on a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would, if ratified, say that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.

Until recently, there was no need for such an amendment, because marriage has, throughout recorded history, involved a man and a woman. But as society's mores have changed, so have our laws and our cultural institutions.

The Federal Marriage Amendment -- as well as the proposed amendments in a dozen states, including Missouri -- was prompted not by a need to define traditional marriage, but because non-traditional marriages are being advocated by gays and lesbians. This issue is so complex that it defies simple analysis.

But it is an important issue, especially for Missouri voters who will be asked to vote Aug. 3 on Amendment 2, a proposal to add these words to the Missouri Constitution: " ... that to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

Those in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry, with all the attendant benefits, tend to call this and similar amendments "gay marriage amendments." But those who hold that only a man and a woman should marry view this as an amendment that simply affirms the traditional concepts of marriage in the face of judicial activism.

Complex underlying issues

While the underlying issues are sensitive and potentially explosive, it is easy for both proponents and opponents of Amendment 2 to state their positions, often while struggling to explain why.

Part of the difficulty with the marriage issue is that it has two distinct components, one legal and one religious. Debates about marriage amendments tend to rely on one component to make a case for the other.

From a legal standpoint, there are many remedies available today for both traditional couples and homosexual couple to deal with such issues as health and pension benefits and making important health-care decisions. Most legal needs of any couple, gay or not, can be met with the guidance of a lawyer.

From a religious standpoint, there are many church groups, including some mainstream denominations, which provide either for marriage ceremonies or blessings of unions that do not require gays and lesbians to obtain a government-issued license.

The judicial options

A major concern of those who favor Amendment 2 is what legal decisions will be made by judges in the absence of constitutional guidance. Missouri already has a law that limits the issuance of marriage licenses to man-woman couples. But any judge for his or her own reasons could decide that law is unconstitutional, which would leave the issue to be resolved by a judicial majority rather than the will of the people.

Proposed constitutional amendments give Missouri's voters an opportunity to express their will as embodied in the state motto: "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law."

In short, the ballot issue will come down to this: Missourians who believe in the traditional marriage of a man and a woman will vote for Amendment 2 in order to protect marriage from unwarranted judicial revisions. But Missourians who believe laws should be changed to give gays and lesbians the same marriage opportunities will vote against Amendment 2.

In our view, the traditional view of marriage ought to be protected while separate consideration continues regarding the tangled issues of gay and lesbian legal needs and while the religious needs of gays and lesbians are addressed by church leaders and the faithful.