Published: June 28, 2009 12:54 am      

Constitutional amendment on marriage needed?

FAIRMONT — We’ve often pondered the need for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Since it doesn’t appear to be legal in this state, why would there be a need to write it into the highest law governing this state?

And it seems that 19.49 percent of our readers last week were right there with us ... they responded to our online poll question with a question instead of an answer — why bother with a constitutional amendment?

And that response happens to be the only definitive answer we offered our readers out of the three poll responses. And we have to say that may have been intentional. And even then, it’s tough to determine whether an individual supports, is against or feels indifferent about the same-sex marriage issue.

Our reasoning behind the intentional vagueness in the poll responses last week was that there may be too many categories to put people in to adequately gauge how people feel.

There are those who feel as if same-sex marriage will destroy the family dynamic. Jeremiah Dys, the president of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, is one. While we don’t know whether he voted in our online survey, which can be found each week at www.timeswv.com, we do know how strongly he feels about the issue. Earlier this month, in a Charleston Gazette commentary written about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a same-sex couple to keep custody of a foster child in their care, Dys wrote that it makes “sense to strengthen marriage in its optimal form, not break it down into nothing more than pandering to the political agenda of less than 1 percent of West Virginia citizens.

“Unfortunately, like the economic stimulus bill, our children will eventually be left with the check — an itemized list of broken families, broken lives and broken dreams. As West Virginians, let’s take the steps needed now to ensure that our children won’t have to pay that price, and tell our legislators we want to vote to protect marriage and our children’s future. Let’s truly ‘save’ marriage for future generations to come,” he wrote.

Dys, by his own word, would likely be among those 52.97 percent who voted “absolutely” to the question of whether there needed to be a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would define marriage.

We heard from a woman this week who wanted nothing more than to be “legally” bound to the person she has already chosen to spend her life with. While it wouldn’t mean much to others, she explained, it would mean a great deal to her and her spouse, who would be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage that other residents of West Virginia have, like health insurance coverage.

Would she have voted “absolutely not” with 27.54 percent of the other voters?

Perhaps we chose to be vague because if and when a constitutional amendment that defines marriage is placed on a ballot, this year or 10 years from now, there will be no vagueness. There will a “yes” or “no” response, and the answer will determine whether West Virginia joins 30 other states that have passed similar measures.

This week, let’s turn our eyes to the world and talk about what the U.S. response should be in regards to a North Korean ship possibly carrying missile components.

Log on. Vote. E-mail me.

Misty Poe

City Editor

mpoe@timeswv.com