Re: “Join states affirming tradition” (letter, 7-17).
I disagree with the writer’s conclusion that our Creator intended for heterosexual committed relationships (marriages) to be the only ones deserving of legal recognition and protection simply because “only a man and a woman have the ability to populate the earth.”
First, the obvious: Procreation does not require marriage, and marriage does not require intended or actual pro-creation.
Second, also obvious: Traditional marriage does not necessarily make a more perfect union – just ask all the heterosexual couples who divorce, even if for reasons other than adultery, spousal or child abuse or abandonment
Third: Equal rights for all means that the civil rights granted by our government – like the right to legal recognition and protection of committed relationships and families – may not be denied to certain minority groups based on a popular vote or the bias of one or more religious groups. Thus, the marriage discrimination laws passed in those 32 states the letter writer so admires will surely be reversed one day as being unconstitutional.
I am proud that our state has passed a law ending marriage discrimination, and I feel it’s beyond offensive that opponents of marriage equality think we should vote on who’s equal and who’s not. A yes vote on Referendum 74 will secure equality for all, without denying any religious groups the right to maintain their own traditions.