The institution of marriage does not need protected by Congress — at least not protection based purely on
the gender of the wedded partners.
A proposed Constitutional amendment, endorsed by U.S. Rep. Bob Latta, R-Bowling Green, and 29 other
legislators, does nothing to protect the positive aspects of marriage.
All it does is preserve who is allowed to get married — and who is not.
The “Marriage Protection Amendment” is intended to uphold the “true meaning” of marriage by defining it
as the union of one man and one woman for all federal and state purposes.
To me, far more important than the gender of the partners is the relationship between the two.
The proposed legislation looks at no qualities other than gender. It would protect the rights to exchange
vows for convicted felons, deadbeat parents and abusive partners — as long as they are of opposite
sexes.
The sanctity of some marriages doesn’t deserve protection.
The amendment would, however, stop loving partners from getting married if they are the same sex.
It wasn’t that long ago when marriages between Protestants and Catholics, and those between different
races, were frowned upon. Most Americans came to realize that a relationship of love and respect cannot
be based on those religious or racial criteria. Love doesn’t work that way.
And based on the frequency of divorces in the U.S., it’s clear that the sanctity of marriage doesn’t come
with a lifetime guarantee just because the partners are of opposite sexes.
Some claim that children need both a mother and a father for a complete, healthy upbringing. I say
children with one loving parent and or two loving parents of the same sex are much better off than those
raised in some traditional families that this legislation would hold sacred. Being heterosexual does not
make a person a good parent, just as being homosexual doesn’t disqualify a person from parenting well.

The argument that the purpose of marriage is for procreation has been tossed out by most reasonable
people who realize that would deem unfit older couples and those unable to have children.
Same-sex marriage is already permitted in 38 states. As proposed, this legislation would replace those
rights to marry with a constitutional ban. That in itself is troubling, since our nation’s Constitution
is built on guaranteeing rights, not denying them.
Besides just the right to live as wedded partners, married people receive many other benefits under the
law, such as favorable tax treatment, inheritance rights, insurance, adoption and custody rights, plus
decision-making and visitation rights in health care.
Congress may be a little out of touch when it comes to same-sex marriage discrimination. A CNN/ORC poll
released last month showed that 63 percent of Americans believe gays have a constitutional right to
marry.
Back in 2004, when Ohioans approved an amendment to the state constitution limiting marriage to the union
of one man and one woman, the majority of Wood County voters agreed. Wood County Democratic Party
Chairman Mike Zickar said he doubts that would still be the case today.
“People’s attitudes have changed so dramatically since then. In Wood County, I’m confident if that if
marriage equality was on the ballot, a majority would support the right for everybody to marry,” Zickar
said.
“The U.S. Constitution has been based on a history of expanding people’s rights over the years, and this
would be a really big reversal to start restricting people’s rights in our Constitution.”
But  Congressman Latta and the others wanting a constitutional ban on gay marriage believe otherwise.
It’s unclear how, but defining marriage as between one man and one woman “will preserve religious
freedom, strengthen families, and benefit children,” according to the bill sponsor, Rep. Tim Huelskamp,
R-Kansas.
Huelskamp promotes the bill saying, “The reality is that moms and dads matter.”
On that, I can agree. But more importantly, good parents — regardless of gender — matter most.