Letters to the Editor

Your views in 250 words or less

R-74: We’ve already redefined marriage to suit the times

Letter by Lorin G. McRae, Fife on Oct. 19, 2012 at 10:29 am | No Comments »
October 19, 2012 10:29 am

As I read some of the letters about marriage equality, I can only draw one conclusion about the thought process of certain individuals. It is plainly and simply ignorance. I have realized that it is impossible to appeal to everyone, so I wish to shed some light on the validity of these stances.

In the argument against Referendum 74, the writers state that marriage was created to benefit the next generation. This may be true, but it is also true that marriage was thought to give ownership of the wife to the husband. Can you imagine if this were true today?

Seeing as this part of the concept of marriage would have negative implications in modern-day American society, we leave this part out in our own definition of marriage, thus recreating the definition to conform to the time.

In my opinion, the most important fact to realize is within the First Amendment. We are free to practice whichever religion we want to, thus creating a separation between the church and state. Therefore, common sense tells us that any laws regarding issues that are persuaded by religion are unconstitutional.

In the end, gay marriage will only affect those gay and lesbian couples. The churches can continue their beliefs and uphold their practices, while gay and lesbian couples can finally share in the confirmation of marriage, because that in theory is what marriage is: being able to say I do love you, and I will spend my life with you.

The News Tribune now uses Facebook commenting on selected blogs. See editor's column for more details. Commenters are expected to abide by terms of service for Facebook as well as commenting rules for thenewstribune.com. Report violators to webmaster@thenewstribune.com.