Letters To The Editor - History defines 'marriage' as between man, woman

Advertisement

When I see a car drive by with "Just Married" written on the windows or see a bride dressed in a beautiful wedding gown, I smile and know a man and a woman are making a commitment to each other that will most likely result in procreation. A commitment between a man and a woman for recorded history is called a "marriage."

Yes, you can use the word, "marriage" other than between a man and a woman such as the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

But, throughout history we have defined "marriage" as, "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

I fully support "civil union" between same genders. A legal, binding agreement between two people, regardless of gender, is right. But, to call this agreement "marriage" is beyond me and even beyond those I know who are in "civil unions."

I may be out of step, but I am confident that should this issue be on a referendum for the voters of Washington to make this decision, we would keep the definition of marriage as it has been since recorded history.

I still want to have a spontaneous smile as I see the car drive by with "Just Married" on the window. Let's keep things as they are.

J.L. Davis
College Place

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment