The Senate recently rejected a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriages. Some say this issue is simply a diversion from more important issues. Others feel it will have an impact on this falls election. How do you see it?

I do not foresee the rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment having any effect on the upcoming election here in Alabama.

President Bush might get some attention over this issue, but if he loses any real ground in Alabama, it will be from other issues. There will be no repercussions from this amendment in the Bible Belt.

To be candid, I have not followed this story closely. As I understand it, the Federal Marriage Amendment would have defined marriage as a heterosexual union.

We already had the Defense of Marriage Act, which left the choice to define marriage to the states. Then, the Massachusetts Supreme Court gives the go-ahead for same-sex marriage without the voters or legislature getting involved.

We in South Alabama recognize three types of marriage: past, present, and common-law. One sure way to unite the less spiritual, the nonbelievers, and far right Christians is just to mention the gay culture. Folks here understand the gay culture about as well as they know and understand radical Islamic fundamentalists. Most have no desire to learn more about it, either.

It is amazing how such a small segment of our society gets so much attention in Washington. Who's next? The left-handed, the colorblind, or the obese? Now, that's a good one. We overweight folks need to unite. I know a lot of good ole boys that don't fit within their doctor's height-to-weight chart.

Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Look at all the clutter that could be eliminated in courthouses throughout the nation. While we are at it, let's abolish divorces. (Now of that I've had a couple). More clutter eliminated. We could replace these Taj Mahal courthouses with trailers.

But listen to the lawyers scream! The more I think about it, it's the lawyers who really are pushing gay marriage legislation. More divorce litigation means more money. That's probably why the Massachusetts court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage: more money for the lawyers. I hope they realize that, just on the basis of biological reasons alone, there would be a decrease in child-support litigation. Just look at the money we could save.

There would be more for education, defense, welfare, and AIDS research.

If I remember my history, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. For a definition of these principles, go to the clergy, for God's sake; don't ask Congress.

To speak seriously for a moment, the Federal Marriage Amendment failure was disappointing to both "Wal-Mart" Republicans and "Granddaddy" Democrats. (For those who don't know about "Granddaddy" Democrats, they are sworn Democrats but walk and talk like "Wal-Mart" Republicans. When questioned about their party allegiance, they launch off into a tirade about "my granddaddy was a Democrat, and I'm a Democrat." The truth is Granddaddy would scratch out of his grave if he knew of the Federal Marriage Amendment failure.)

On the other hand, many people, including the old Democrats, don't care nor have no opinion. The sad part is that the common folk knew so little about the pending amendment.

An interesting observation regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment and same-sex marriage comes from African-Americans middle-aged or older. They are quick to tell you that marriage is for a man and a woman. These folks are 24-karat Democrats, the backbone and guts of the Democratic vote in South Alabama. Here they are in agreement with both "Wal-Mart" Republicans and "Granddaddy" Democrats. Ask a 50-plus-year-old African American working man from the dirty South, with calloused hands and streaks of salt in his sweaty shirt, and stand back - he may explode. He is going to tell you what a foolish question that is and what a fool you are for asking. Then he will explain that marriage is for a man and a woman and that there ought to be a law prohibiting two men or two women to marry.

The whole debate is not a partisan issue, not an ethnic issue, or a racial issue, but to these people it is a moral issue.

The sad matter is that with all the problems of our great nation, the U.S. Senate is debating this issue at the public's expense. For that matter, it is a waste of time and money for Congress, state legislatures, or the Courts to debate this issue. This whole debate is not worth two dead flies. Leave them in the closet and let God bring them out.

There is no intention to bash any of the aforementioned groups or make a joke of the sanctity of marriage. It is just a few thoughts I have about an issue with a lot of fruits and nuts on both sides.

Living Large in Lower Alabama,
Joe Franklin