  (Amendment 2 is the attempt in Missouri to change the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman) I believe in the sanctity of marriage and its ability to let two people discover God's love in their shared life. I believe that marriage is both hard work and an unearned gift, that it comes to two people for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health.
I believe that marriage is by definition a lifelong commitment between husband and wife. I have said, countless times, the words from my Church's marriage rite, telling all hearers that this holy union between husband and wife "is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. " I believe these words. I myself am married and the father of children, and I am mindful of the covenant relationship I have with my beloved as part of God's claim on my life, and my joy. I also know that the dominant culture surrounding us does precious little to support married persons in their vocation. I cannot believe, however, that amending Missouri's constitution will fix what ails us, when it comes to the legacy of marriage. The impetus to vote "yes" on Amendment 2 next week may well come from a desire to "do something" for the sake of marriage.
What might be done effectively, however, is in truth both more ordinary and more demanding: spend good, old-fashioned quantity of time with spouse and family; build networks of support in faith communities and extended families and neighborhoods to sustain people in this bold covenant vocation; dig deeper into the traditions of faith, the disciplines and the feasting alike; practice living open handedly with one another and in all things, for God's sake. All things considered, it is easier just to vote "yes" on a referendum. I am arguing instead for the hard work marriage demands of us all.
I would also be remiss if I were to omit naming two dire circumstances around this proposed Amendment. First, let us be sure that the body politic receives no good fortune in the opportunity to cast a vote on this divisive issue. Human sexuality has become a wedge issue in American society, used deftly at times by those on both sides of the issue. Forcing a "yes" or "no" vote divides even further an already polarized electorate. I write as someone whose Church has faced divisions in the aftermath of a vote on human sexuality one year ago.
I am not eager to vote one more time on this matter, but I am even less eager to give into the power of a wedge issue. Second, there is the witness from gay and lesbian persons in our communities, and from gay and lesbian believers in my own Church. The prospect of Amendment 2 leaves them with an ill foreboding. It gives them a message of unwelcome in their own neighborhoods. It makes them feel marginally less safe; some even feel considerably less safe. A few have received hateful messages in the mail or on the phone on in person over these past weeks, when they have never before heard such things around here.
I ask you to consider whether this is what we want, in a place we rightly love. They hear that the Amendment is supposed somehow to protect marriage; they know, however, that it is really about them. I am in favor of marriage. Supporting marriage, however, takes more than a tick on the ballot. Let us not allow wedge politics to define what is essentially a matter of the heart, and a costly commitment. Polarizing the electorate in this matter is hardly helpful—and the politics of polarization turn dangerous whenever the language of hate becomes permissible. I fervently ask you to support married persons in their vocation. I ask you with equal fervor to eschew hatred. The Rt. Rev. George Wayne Smith Bishop of The Episcopal Diocese of Missouri 
