Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Celebrate those who act responsibly

Letter by Vincent S. Hart, University Place on July 31, 2012 at 11:38 am with 27 Comments »
July 31, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: “Nature argues for heterosexual unions” (letter, 7-28).

The letter writer made a good case in favor of legalizing gay marriage, though I don’t think that was his intent.

Marriage is intended to provide security and continuity for all persons involved. It provides rights and responsibilities to the couple and to the community. The birthing and nurture of children has never been a requirement or sole goal of marriage, even when commonly expected.

Because human sexuality is a constant and powerful force, society has particular interest in channeling its expression in ways that do as much good and as little harm as possible. I suggest that the public sanctioning of marriage serves that purpose in particular.

Does it work? Not all that well. The problem facing marriage now is not a threat from “redefinition,” which would extend its rights and responsibilities to more people wanting to take them on. It is most seriously threatened by those who take on the rights and privileges of marriage but fail to live up to the responsibilities.

Our society ought to be cheering the desire of a whole new segment of its citizens wanting to get into the responsibilities and rights of marriage. It ought to be saying, “Come on in! Sign here!”

In particular it ought to be saying “Thank you” to those thousands of gay and lesbian couples who have lived together faithfully, and often raised children very successfully, without any of the rights which are designed to strengthen long-term relationships, support the cohesiveness of society and preserve the well-being of children.

Leave a comment Comments → 27
  1. billybushey says:

    Mr. Hart: Thank you for writing a reasoned and thoughtful comment. Given the hate and vitriol that is seen in the comments section in general and on this issue in particular, you are a breathe of fresh air. I happen to agree with your opinion, but my point is that even someone who disagrees would have no cause to do so disrespectfully.

  2. josephcristel says:

    1.While “birthing ” is not a requirement for marriage it is a requirement for continuing the human race.There is something wrong with this “segment” of the population that doesn’t propagate the race and let’s another “segment” do the heavy lifting of child bearing,while demanding the same pay.
    2. “Channeling” sexual energy, particularly of men,is definitely in the interest of society.However,author George Gilder(Men and Marriage)states that it is a woman that socializes men.This works because women are a man’s gender counterpart not a mirror image of himself.
    3.Marriage has many threats,granted.Not the least of these is our government which endorses laws like the marriage penalty in taxes,co-habitation,all sorts of perks when you have babies out of wed lock,etc. Having said that,I’ll say this.Redefining marriage is a game changer.Period.It will open the flood gate to litigation such as we’ve never had.It will embolden others to seek the marriage “rights” gays will have.
    4.OK.Thank you to all those gay couples who have done well and now have the rights of the rest of us(if your lacking any I’m sure the Legislature will fill in the missing parts).But as far as needing them to strengthen Natural Marriage,no.That’s like saying “in order to strengthen the dollar we should print more counterfeit money”.Marriage isn’t a Country Buffet where you can put anything you want on the plate.It allows for only 2 items.A man and a woman. Enjoy!

  3. Propagating the human race is “heavy lifting”?

    Way too easy.

  4. Theefrinker says:

    JosephCristel, The perpetuity of the human race is not threatened because a small percentage of humans are not reproducing. And a lot of this “heavy lifting” is done by homosexuals in commited relationships who are taking on the responsibility of being parents to a child that the “normal” people frivolously produced and ditched…you know for the sake of mankind prospering.

  5. josephcristel says:

    Freethinker, Your right. I doubt the human race will perish unless homosexual marriages become the norm,but marriage by being “redefined” will greatly suffer.What’s that saying,”A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf”?..or something like that.
    I’m not for supporting irresponiblity in any group and I’m sure a child is fortunate to have a loving, caring couple caring for him..gay or otherwise.But “they do a “lot” of the heavy lifting?”.. no.Few studies on same sex families have been made and one reason is that the’re aren’t that many homosexual families and even less have children. But those that do are predominantly lesbian households.Where did the kids come from for those lesbian couples?Not from adoption as you suggest or just taking a relative’s child in. No,they came from broken heterosexual relationship that the lesbian was in.The vast majority are this way.
    Marriage is in a state of turmoil,for sure.But muddyiny the waters by redefining it will,in the end,benefit no one and harm many.

  6. penumbrage says:

    josephcristel – Or we could just redefine the ‘man’ and ‘woman’ part to reflect the medical fact that (gays of choice and gays of circumstance aside) at least 1/2 a percent of the population is born intersex, existing in a gray area somewhere in between male and female.
    That way you could say ‘one man, one woman (where it applies)’ but still allow the government to fulfill it’s obligation to grant the same rights and opportunities for happiness to ALL of it’s citizens.

  7. averageJose says:

    yaaawwwnnnn… lets vote.

  8. fullhouse says:

    josephcristel – Your claim that the vast majority of kids in gay families come from broken hetero relationships doesn’t ring true to me. For example, my partner and I adopted one of our kids from foster care, and she gave birth to the other two. Almost all of our gay friends with kids either adopted or gave birth. I think that for an older generation, you might be right, but I’m in my early 40’s and for my peers and younger, we are choosing to become parents with our same-sex partners, either by adoption or assisted reproduction. I’m so tired of people throwing out “facts” about gay families that I needed to respond. And one more thing, you claim that marriage won’t help anyone but will hurt many. It will help my family. I don’t see how it will hurt yours.

  9. fullhouse says:

    And when I say that our friends “either adopted or gave birth” I mean they chose to get pregnant or use a surrogate as a couple, as opposed to raising a child from a previous hetero relationship. Of course, all kids come from adoption or birth. LOL.

  10. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    There is something missing here with “MARRIAGE: Celebrate those who act responsibly”.

    What is marriage? I have been with my wife for over 25 years. Yet the state of Washington and so on does not have anything, showing we are married. There was no marriage license issued here in the state nor any other record. The IRS is not even able to confirm who is “married” and who is not, you can mark you are married and filing jointly. Yet the IRS has never asked for a copy of a marriage cartificate. We have done up our Wills and Powers of Attorney, it does not matter if you are married or not. You will need those documents, in order for life events to be taken care of legally.

    This whole deal with “Marriage Equality” are bogus claims. The rights are already there, if you don’t know them, then look them up. This article also makes it sound like there are no domestic violence problems within the gay commuinity. Where national statistics show it is just as high if not more so than the heterosexuals.

    It is not as peachy as the writer of this article makes it out to be.

  11. beerBoy says:

    There is something wrong with this “segment” of the population that doesn’t propagate the race and let’s another “segment” do the heavy lifting of child bearing,while demanding the same pay.

    So….salaries should be determined by whether or not one has spawned?

  12. LeePHill says:

    Why are these people so obsessed over who marries who?

  13. dtacoma says:

    Actually there is a long way to go before equality is reached, at both the federal and local levels. Not all states are as reasonable and accepting as Washington. The shortest route to equality is for gay marriage to be recognized as equal to straight marriages.

    Just a few examples of inequality involve financial benefits. For example, you own a $300,000 house; you get married; you add your wife to the title. No problem, no cost. A gay couple does the same thing and the person added to the title is stuck paying tax on the value he/she received. There are also issues involving medical power of attorney; durable power of attorney; wills and trusts; retirement pensions; insurance; gift taxes; and second parent adoption.

  14. Theefrinker says:

    Personally, instead of extending benefits to married couples (on a government level(, I think it should just be done away with for everyone; then it’s equal. That way anyone who wants to marry “spiritually” can do so without interference from anyone else. Marriage, in this respect, is just a concept anyway. It was once used as an ownership tool (representatively, this is still common) and now is more or less, just an extra expression of an already existing commitment. If you take out the benefits for everyone, you’ll see marriages slow down quite a bit, especially in those relationships involving a military partner.

  15. dtacoma says:

    Theefrinker: I agree that government has no business in the marriage business; that marriage belongs in the religious arena. That said, it’s not reasonable to expect that the government will relinquish their control in this area, nor will they withdraw any current benefits to married people. Too many votes and campaign cash at risk.

  16. PositiveNews says:

    Awesome letter! Thank you, Mr Hart!

  17. josephcristel says:

    Fullhouse..You’re right to call me on the children of ssm.Although the majority are from lesbian families I was not informed enough to make the assertion of where they originated.I could not readily find the percentages.Will be looking into it in more depth.
    I’ll also give you another point. If it will help your family then my statement isn’t entirely true.It also may not hurt my family directly at this point..But..I’m more concerned with society as a whole not with just me,myself and I.Things that you can do privately in your own life,say like drug use,affect society very little.But when it becomes widely practiced in society the conseqences,though not immediately visible for a time, can be devastating.That said, I wish you and your family the very best regardless of our differing views on a very difficult subject.

  18. LeePHill says:

    “But..I’m more concerned with society as a whole not with just me,myself and I.Things that you can do privately in your own life,say like drug use,affect society very little.But when it becomes widely practiced in society the conseqences,though not immediately visible for a time, can be devastating”

    What is gay marriage going to do to your marriage and family, Joe? You going to leave your wife and take up with a man because of gay marriage? If not, your concerns are nothing short of bigotry.

  19. averageJose says:

    No matter how you define marriage, there are always going to be some people who are left out of the definition…

  20. LeePHill says:

    Well then…let’s define marriage as “a union between people that mind there business about others sex lives”……

  21. LeePHill says:

    That would certainly make the issue “choice”….

  22. After following this blog for about a month it has become obvious to that disagreeing with Lee PHill identifies one as a bigot, racist, homophobe, Republican or some combination of the four.

  23. delete the ‘to’ following the word ‘obvious’.

  24. Marriage reflects the culture.

    Cultures change.

    Therefore marriage changes.

  25. averageJose says:

    “marraige reflects the culture”. You just made that up, didn’t you?

  26. no aJo – I have more than three active brain cells and a superior education.

  27. Soccer reflects the culture.

    Cultures change.

    Ergo, soccer is now the national pastime and calls itself baseball.

    Tiresome isn’t it?

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