Letters To The Editor - Resist effort to blur definitions


All my life I have believed that marriage is a sacrament, like an oath, an obligation and a promise between a man and a woman that should be honored until death or until it becomes truly impossible to maintain.

Now we have a president who wants to change the definition of marriage so he can get the votes of the gay and lesbian community. He says it is his "personal belief" that same-sex marriage is OK. But then, transparently, in order to get the votes of the so-called "straight" community, he goes on to say the states should decide the issue.

This is his "political out" because if the states vote against calling same-sex unions marriage, he can blame the right wing; it won't be his fault.

Marriage? Webster's still defines marriage as "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." If you go further and look up "matrimony," you will find the definition: "the union of a man and woman as husband and wife: Marriage."

I am not ashamed to say I believe the definitions are right. The "transparent" attempts to blur those definitions and get all of us to agree "anything goes" must be resisted solidly.

Bill Owens



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

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in