To the editor:

What happened to the plan for an amendment that would protect traditional marriage?

According to the story on page 4B of the Journal-World Jan. 15, the proposed language of the amendment to protect traditional marriage that passed the Senate reads, “Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only.”

TRADITIONAL marriage (and having just celebrated 43 years of such, I should know) is “till death do us part.” (Modern verbiage “until parted by death.”) How are we protecting traditional marriage if we allow divorce?

Now I hear that the Legislature may delay a statewide vote on even this flawed amendment until November 2006. While we sit here with our marriages unprotected, the Legislature is scheming to somehow allow this all important vote to help with a Republican gubernatorial victory in 2006! Are we really to believe that the Grand Old Party can’t come up with a male candidate who can beat a little Catholic girl Democrat without further jeopardizing our marriages? Aren’t they aware of how many marriages will end in divorce, not to mention other “nontraditional” relationships, will be entered into in the next 22 months?

Ruth Hull,

Lawrence