Marriage is union of two people in love || December

O n Nov. 4, 2008, Florida voters may be asked whether they wish to add to the Constitution of Florida an amendment which states: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” The proponents of this amendment need 611,009 valid signatures by Feb. 1 to get it on the ballot. They claim to need only 13,603 more signatures.

The intent of the amendment, advocates say, is simply to put into the state constitution a ban on gay marriage that already exists in state statutes. Opponents argue that the amendment will have sweeping, unintended consequences, interfering with legal rights of gay and straight unmarried couples, from hospital visitation and health care decisions, to even domestic partner employee benefits.

First of all, do we even need to define marriage? If so, what do we define it as? Should the government get in the business of defining marriage, or even of providing incentives for married couples? Regardless of whether the government should define marriage, people still want it to recognize marriage not only because of the protections that it provides, but also – as those who support this amendment have argued – to “preserve the sanctity of marriage.” As far as the economic incentives are concerned, there are other ways to protect those interests through the law. But the more controversial point is defining what this “sanctity of marriage” means. Should the government be the one to promote a religiously biased view of the “proper” roles of gender and family structure? Does this not run afoul of the whole concept of separation of church and state, one of the principles on which this country was founded? We are all familiar with the vows: “To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ‘till death do us part.” Isn’t that what marriage is about – being able to commit yourself to one person for the rest of your life and being able to profess that to the world and have them acknowledge the union? The concept of marriage is so infused with so many influences that it should be left for the individuals to decide, not the government – or more accurately, politicians seeking to garner votes for election.

Ultimately, this debate is not about gay marriage. This is about ensuring that people are able to determine their own life choices.

Outlawing gay marriage is stupid. As we have all learned from the previous two presidential elections, appeals to religiously motivated issues can make or break campaigns. The placing of this amendment on the 2008 election ballet could have the potential of blinding voters to the real issues that we are currently facing in the world. In a world filled with terrorism, starvation, disease, and the growing awareness that the earth’s environment is slowly twiddling away, ask yourself this: what is so harmful and immoral about two people expressing love for one another?