I write to respond to Angus McLeod's Sept. 10 letter concerning a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. The letter ignores both the substantial cost and irrational reasoning behind such a proposed amendment.

When Rep. Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) requested a fiscal study of putting this amendment (House Bill 493) on the ballot, it was revealed by legislative research staff that it would cost taxpayers $2.8-$3.3 million to place such a question on the ballot.

I can think of many things state government should do with that amount of money -- chiefly, giving it back to the taxpayers. Placing an absurd "marriage amendment" on the general ballot is simply a waste of taxpayer money.

As we all know, such an amendment would do nothing to protect marriage. The real threats to marriage are poor communication, lack of trust and letting daily irritations crowd out the important things in life.

If you want truly to support marriage, work to enhance communication between spouses. However, if you must have a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, pass one that outlaws divorce.

Michael Edwards

Pinehurst