Marriage Amendment Threatens Nothing

It occurred to me yesterday after my lastest post on the fear mongering from the Left on the marriage amendment coming up on the November ballot that not only are the individual arguments they're bringing up red herrings, but the whole argument that it's going to change ANYTHING is a red herring.

I stand by the statements I made that it's foolish and wrong to expect for a non-marital relationship to receive the same benefits as marriage. But I got to thinking: I don't think the marriage amendment would do anything at all to diminish whatever protections an unmarried couple might have in a domestic violence situtation. And an interview conducted by Denise Ross of Rob Regier from the South Dakota Family Policy Council confirms my suspicion.

Rob said that while some states do require a marital relationship before the full, expidited protections of domestic abuse law come into play, South Dakota domestic abuse protections only require that the abuser and the abused live together. So even two guys living together platonically--as roomates in a college, a military barracks, or sharing an apartment--could theoretically be protected under domestic abuse provisions, though they would almost certainly consider conventional law (i.e. assault statutes, etc) to be sufficient.

I also went back and reread the amendment (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2005/bills/HJR1001enr.htm), which is something we should always do when there is a question. My reading of this 42-word amendment confirmed that the scope of the amendment deals only with the institution of marriage itself. It says "only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized." It also says that any other name you want to call a marriage-type relationship by (e.g. civil union, domestic partnership, etc) shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota." It has nothing to say about the enforcement of other laws, and it has nothing to say about whether a company can offer domestic partner benefits if it wants to. The scope of the amendment deals only with what marriage is and what marriage is not--and says nothing whatsoever about the benefits that come with marriage.

My thanks to the Left for this opportunity to further clarify what the marriage amendment is really about: marriage.