Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Why put any limits on it?

Letter by Judy Rogers-LaVigne, Olympia on June 13, 2012 at 12:42 pm with 41 Comments »
June 13, 2012 12:42 pm

Proponents of same-sex marriage say over and over that it is all about “love,” that two people who “love” each other should be allowed to marry.

Using that theory, they really don’t believe what they say. Current law says marriage is limited in four ways. You can’t marry someone who is under 18, you can’t marry someone who is already married, you can’t marry someone who is a close relative and you can’t marry someone of the same gender.

Same-sex marriage advocates only address one of these points and insist it should go no further. Why? If others love each other why shouldn’t they also marry?

Plural marriages have actually been legal in many countries for a long time – thousands of years in fact. Can we really deny the fringe Mormons the right to marry whom they love, and as many as they love, if we allow same-sex couples to marry? Can we deny a brother and sister from marrying if the love each other? Or how about an adult marrying a 10-year-old child? How can we deny them if they are in love?

This is a kettle of worms that society will regret. Homosexuals have all rights of marriage already. Use some common sense and vote to oppose homosexual marriage.

Leave a comment Comments → 41
  1. surething says:

    Wow, what an ignorant letter.

  2. tellnolies says:

    “Common sense is merely the deposit of prejudice laid down in the human mind before the age of 18”
    Albert Einstein

    Reason is a better guide than “common sense.” Unfortunate that so many choose their deposit of prejudice over reason….

  3. conservativeteacher says:

    Great letter! What if I love a goat?

  4. Who made plural marriages illegal? Conservative Christians.

    It was the aristocrats who revered marrying within their family. It protected their wealth. I’m sure there are some that would see that as a plus among today’s wealthy.

    If you think that it is OK to force a child to marry, you’d be rightly aligned with many conservative religions.

    I’m not sure how two adults marrying will make society force children to marry, create wealth protection for families that inter-marry or renew the right for Mormons and other faiths to enter into plural marriages, but if you’ve taken the time to worry about it, you probably have solutions that don’t include making marriage between two consenting adults illegal.

    Are you willing to go against the Conservative Christians to allow Mormons and other faiths their constitutional right to practice their religion to its fullest extent? How about the religions that demand child marriages? Why are you discriminating against those religions?

    Thanks for not bringing up Santorum’s favorite – man on dog. It makes me sick to my stomach.

  5. you’ll have to get the goat’s permission.

    There always seems to be someone into bestiality when talking about two consentual humans.

  6. alindasue says:

    We don’t allow someone under the age of 18 to marry because that person is not legally old enough to give consent. The same applies to a person who is not cognizant enough to make his or her own legal decisions (such as my 28 year old son who has the understanding ability of a preschooler).

    Aside from that, if the partners are CONSENTING adults, why should the government be able to tell a people who they can and can’t marry?

    By the way, regardless of my personal feelings about homosexuality, it is untrue to say that homosexuals have all the rights of marriage already. They have no legal standing when their partners are hospitalized. They have no rights to “community property” in the case of a partner’s death without a will. Their partners work does not have to provide medical insurance for them under its family plans. That piece of paper called a “marriage license” can make a big difference when it comes to legal standing. If it didn’t, then why would we require government issued marriages licenses at all?

  7. alindasue says:


    When goats are able to give informed legal consent, we’ll talk about whether they can marry.


    Mormons only practiced polygamy for a short time and only a few of them did it. It’s hardly a major tenet of the faith and never has been.

    However, there are cases where we still have to ask “what about polygamy”? It is still sanctioned and practiced in some religions and countries in this world.

    I know a lady (former co-worker) from Djibouti whose husband lives in France with his other wife. They were both officially married to him within their Muslim faith and according to the laws of Djibouti. If he and the other wife decide to join her and their kids here in the USA, should he have to divorce one of them? Does it hurt anyone for them to all remain married? Why would it?

  8. Always with the animal comparisons, enough already. It’s getting old and sounds ignorant. I personally don’t care who another adult loves and wants to marry. I could not care less what your God or your bible says. I have gay friends who were together over 20 years and “thought” that they had everything taken care of legally as far as last wishes, etc. and when one died last year, the other had no rights whatsoever when it came to her partner’s ashes, even though it had been specified in a will. Just because you have been “told” that they already have all those rights, it is not true in all instances. Perhaps if the bible thumpers got over the SEX part of thinking about same-sex marriage, they might feel differently or their decisions might evolve, but it’s the obsession with the sex that gets them every time.

  9. Frankenchrist says:

    Newt Gingrich and his third wife oppose gay marriage because they support traditional values. So there!

  10. Theefrinker says:

    I don’t support “same-sex marriage”, I support variable-sex marriage. One would certainly get bored of the same sex after awhile; it’s good to switch things up every now and again. Maybe come in with a clown costume on or something, you know?

  11. Judy, turn off talk radio, do yourself and everyone around you that small favor.

  12. I’ve seen some people ask others what Gay Marriage would do to them personally. That is the wrong question when any subject comes to a vote. The right question, for any unselfish person, is “What will this do to my country/state/county/etc?” That said, denying any group the same privileges as the majority has, if it will not harm society, is wrong.

  13. Should have added;

    I have not seen or heard any proof that gay marriage will harm society.

  14. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could “marry” was itself greeted with scorn.

    Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the man and his mare or the woman and her german shepard. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on homosexual couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such idealized “families” are utterly atypical among homosexuals.


    1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.

    2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional marriage

    3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue

    4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage and so will WA voters.

    5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.

    6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.

  15. LeePHill says:

    1. Gay marriage must threaten taxedenoughintacoma’s marriage. Mine isn’t threatened

    2. Same sex relationships are not the equivilant of traditional marriage as traditional marriage has changed many times in history so there is no traditional marriage.

    3. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. The right for all people to have equal access.

    4. Most Americans are not worried about the private lives of others, with exception of obsessions of some mentally ill people.

    5. Thre is no moral alternative to traditional marriage as there is no traditional marriage.

    6. Homosexuality is viewed as homosexuality, except in the obsessions of some mentally ill people

  16. Taxed, unless you can back them up with evidence, every one of those statements is an opinion.

  17. bobcat1a says:

    conservative teacher, you can marry the goat when you find one over the age of consent that can sign it’s name and say “I do.” I certainly hope you are not characteristic of teachers today but if you are we have identified the problem with our education system…lack of logical reasoning ability.

  18. bobcat1a says:

    Taxedenough, can you please explain to us how same gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage? With something recognizable as logic rather than faith.

  19. Others have said it on this thread and elsewhere, but I’ll chime in, too.

    States do get to restrict marriage rights, but only if the marriage can be shown to harm others, harm those in the marriage or harm our democracy. States have chosen to restrict marriages in various ways over time, some constitutional and some not. Common law and the application of Constitutional principles have won out each time over parochial or religious ideology, prejudice and ignorance.

    Underage marriage has been shown to harm the people in the marriage if they are not old enough to give consent or fulfill the responsibilities of marriage.

    Some people have been judged to be incompetent to give consent, even if they are of legal age, and their marriages can be restricted.

    Polygamy may be restricted, says the Supreme Court, because it has been shown to harm democratic principles and inheritance rights.

    I have asked for any evidence that gay marriage will cause harm, and even though taxedenough says it is a “fact”, there has been no evidence submitted, only fear mongering and “slippery-slope” arguments.

    In the 1950’s a common saying in the South was “If they let blacks and whites marry each other, what will be next, people marrying monkeys?”. I don’t see any announcements of such, but maybe I missed all the ape-human marriages that have resulted from allowing such.

  20. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    You guys want facts and stats,well here you go.

    Last week, nearly a quarter-of-a-million Washingtonians signed petitions to give the people of Washington the opportunity to preserve marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Referendum 74 will allow us to “Reject” the legislature’s decision to impose same-sex marriage on our state.

    Thats all the facts you need to know. Say bye….

  21. Over 500,000 people in Wisconsin signed a petition and the vote didn’t go the way they wanted. Last time I looked, 250,000 was a minority of Washington voters.

    How many lies will they tell to try to force their will on people who love each other?

  22. alindasue says:

    taxedenoughintacoma said, “Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the man and his mare or the woman and her german shepard.”

    When you can find me a mare or a German Shepard that can give informed legal consent, we’ll discuss the “logical” possibility.

    tuddo said, “Polygamy may be restricted, says the Supreme Court, because it has been shown to harm democratic principles and inheritance rights.”

    The Supreme Court also now says the corporations are people.

    Can you explain to me, in facts and not emotional response, how exactly plural marriage can “harm” democratic principles?

    As for inheritance rights, would a plural marriage situation be any worse than a situation where children are spread out over the deceased’s several divorces?

    I still maintain that the only limits that the GOVERNMENT should place on marriage is that the partners involved should be able to give informed legal consent. (The laws of God are another matter, but that is up to the individual religions to enforce according to their beliefs, not the government.)

  23. spotted1 says:

    I am not in support of gay marriage. I will just put that out there. But I am at the point that I don’t care about it.

    “Straight” couples are marrying and divorcing and acting like it is expensive dating. “Straight” couples act like complete idiots at times. “Straight” couples battle it out in court over assets and kids during divorce.

    If gay couple want all the benefits of marriage, go for it. Can’t wait to see the first “gay divorce” fight play out in the media…

  24. harleyrider1 says:

    If some Americans took all the energy, time, and effort that they spend on telling other Americans what they should do and how they should live, and instead proposed solutions for the economy, maybe this President might come up with a plan. Blaming Bush, blaming Congress, blaming the rich, blaming financial businesses – after nearly 4-years, still no plan. But he did jump on this bandwagon even though it’s all fluff for votes.

    Dangle shiny objects and some voters get their attention diverted from the most serious problem in our history.

    And seeing that it is America … let people have their own beliefs and live how they want so long as that belief is not to destroy our Country.

    What is the point to give people all the rights or privileges of “marriage”, but not allow them to call it that? And no, they do not have “all” of this. Can you imagine your best friend dying in a hospital, but only “immediate family” is allowed to be with them? I don’t want that moment denied for any American.

    I served my Country at a time when our Country was even more divided and did not especially like our soldiers. but now, it’s popular. Sometimes we need to live our own lives and remember we are all Americans.

    And, “surething” – I was surprised in this day and age that we read a letter so reflective of singular thought.

  25. taxed –

    1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

    1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

  26. Such simple minded ignorance. Judy still does not understand what ‘consenting adults’ means. Some people believe they are acting in the name of god. If ignorant hate and the despising of other human beings are the result of acting in the name of god, we are all better off staying away from churches…

  27. Taxed…waiting for some facts.

  28. Here’s a fact I haven’t seen anyone bring forth: whether you believe in creation or evolution, the FACT is all life forms exist because of reproduction. Whether that comes in the form of an animal or plant, reproduction requires male and female organisms. OK, a worm can reproduce by itself and some plants self-pollinate, but mammals (which includes human beings) require a male and a female. Bodies are structured to fit together for the sole purpose of reproduction. While there have been studies of homosexual behavior amongst dolphins, it is typically between two males when a female is not present. Sex is fun and feels good to ensure reproduction, and survival of the species. Homosexuality is NOT normal behavior.

  29. WOW…I can’t believe someone signed there name to that letter.

  30. wlake, sorry, but your point has been made before and ridiculed as well it should be.

    I am old, and my sexual couplings do not produce offspring. I guess that means in your eyes my sexual activities are “not normal behavior”.

    Please introduce a bill to restrict marriage to fertile, offspring producing couples only. You will see very quickly that people get married for a lot more reasons that reproduction.

    You will quickly find that infertile people, older people and others who choose not to have children feel the Constitution gives them just as much right to marry.

    And, who gives you the right to determine what is “normal” anyway?

  31. Minimum legal age for marriage:
    Without parental consent: 18
    With parental/guardian consent: 17
    Minors under 17 may obtain license in special circumstances.


    Taxed – you ‘fact’ re R-74 proves that there are some who share your beliefs; it does not support the truth or validity of your beliefs.

    Wlake – marriage does not require procreation (or even the attempt), and procreation does not require marriage.

  32. well Tuddo, is your “coupling” with a member of the opposite sex?
    And what gives you the right to question my right to express my opinion? Hypocrite.

  33. For my life I cannot figure out why so many Christians concern themselves so deeply with this marriage issue. The whole “sacrament” argument is pointless, as are all sacraments after the work of the cross. Before I gave this much thought and prayer I signed R74, and since I have asked the Lord for forgiveness and wish I could pull my signature. I believe that the Lord calls us to judge others at times (false prophets etc.) but does not call us to judge to the end. We are all sinners before the Lord, and all of our righteousness is like a filthy rag. By his grace we can repent and be forgiven…it is not my place to judge in this matter. I pray that those who practice homosexuality seek the Lord’s forgiveness and be saved.

  34. wlake, its none of your business or the government’s business what anyone else does in their private sex life, and that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

    I agree completely that you have the right to express an absurd opinion. I did say however, that you did not have the right to determine what is “normal” which is a factual decision made by study, science and not by personal opinion.

    Homosexuality is a normal expression of the range of human sexuality.

    This is from the American Psychological Assiociation, but it references other groups of researchers who have come to the same conclusion: And those are facts, not opinions:

    “Homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexual orientation that poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, including the capacity to form healthy and mutually satisfying intimate relationships with another person of the same sex and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children, as documented by several professional organizations (American Psychiatric Association, 1974; American Psychological Association, 2004a, 2004b; Conger, 1975, National Association of Social Workers, 2003)”


  35. What does procreation have to do with “normal behavior”?

    I guess my wife and I aren’t normal as we don’t procreate.

  36. took14theteam says:

    Pretty sure there are more reasons why you aren’t normal, Larry.

  37. What if I love a goat?

    If you are caught you will go to jail

    For centuries, zoosexual acts were penalized under sodomy or “crime against nature” laws. In the past 40 years, most of these laws have been repealed, but in some territories they have been replaced by laws which are specifically anti-zoosexual. Most of these new laws have been created during a “surge” of intolerant anti-zoosexual legislation which occurred in the 2000s (decade) and in the early 2010s; for example, bestiality was banned in Pennsylvania in 1999,[6] it was banned in Illinois in 2002,[7] it was banned in Maryland in 2002,[8] it was banned in Washington (state) in 2006,[9] it was banned in Arizona in 2006,[10] it was banned in Tennessee in 2007,[11] it was banned Colorado in 2007,[12] it was banned in Alaska in 2010,[13] it was banned in Florida in 2011 (by Nan Rich),[14] and it could be banned in Ohio in 2012;[15] outside the U.S., bestiality was banned in Norway in 2008,[16] it was banned in The Netherlands in 2010,[17] and it was banned in Australia’s capital territory in 2011.[18] Anti-zoosexual legislation is a recent development, possibly caused in part by exposure to bestiality (and awareness of it) via the Internet.

  38. Remember the great scene in Woody Allen’s “Everything you wanted to know about sex” with Gene Wilder and the sheep?

    Whenever zoophilia is raised by the anti-gay marriage crowd I remember that scene and get a chuckle. I like to laugh, so thanks for bringing it up so often on these threads.

    beerBoy, your link hypothesizes that the internet helped make animal “husbandry” a crime, but I think it was thanks to the animal rights activists pointing out that it was animal abuse and making it clear that the sheep , when saying “baaaaa”, was not giving consent.

  39. penumbrage says:

    conservativeteacher: taxedenoughintacoma;

    The American Psychological Association (as well as the AMA and anyone else familiar with the reality of human reproduction) also recognizes the fact that we share the country with millions of blameless people who are born intersexed. (http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/intersex.pdf)
    I have yet to hear a rational (or even coherent) argument from any of the ‘one man, one woman’ folks as to why they think the government should infringe on the rights of innocent citizens who simply are not, in fact, exclusively ‘men’ or ‘women’.
    You express disgust at how anyone could choose to be homosexual, but then you turn around and expect someone accidentally born with a male brain and female genitalia to somehow adopt a gay mentality and be attracted to other men.

  40. took14theteam says:

    Hey Tuddo, got some questions for you on this thread


    You going to answer them?

  41. took, I went against my best instincts and “answered” your statements.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0