I see confusion in some people willing to deny the rights, freedoms and protections that Referendum 74 would guarantee. It gives all people the choice to marry who they want regardless of their gender.
R-74 naysayers defend marriage steeped in religious beliefs insisting the Bible mandates marriage can only be between a man and a woman bound by God as they define God.
People being born with feelings to bond with the same sex and build a family together is nothing new.
The contractual agreement of public record that starts and stops at the courthouse is not the marriage contract steeped in religious beliefs. Domestic discord demands civil protections.
Personal relationships fall apart. The terrible twos of childhood don't cease to exist when we turn 3. We change, and as couples not always in the same ways and not necessarily together. Faith-based marriages and strictly civil marriages both are in jeopardy of divorce. They have not and will not be made worse due to passage of R-74.
The fact is people have entered into marriage with the opposite sex because it was the socially expected, legally mandated choice forced upon them by other people, trying to hold it together and hang in there for the kids and the rest of their families. They have had to finally admit their feelings of the love bond as a couple lies with another person of the same sex.
Had they have had the choice made possible by R-74 would their choice have been different?
Worldwide our most obsessive, deadliest ongoing arguments and wars are over religious beliefs.
America's expected social mandates have been rewritten to free the slaves because they were born with black skin, to stop marriage rape of women and other angry abuses. Wives are not bought and owned property. To stop child abuse because they need to be educated through life by caring adults willing to learn and mature with them, not beaten into compliance.
Will we ever achieve these ideals? The mean, discriminating words of childhood bullying carried into adulthood are the implications pronounced by saying no to passage of R-74.
You are a second-class citizen undeserving to share in my rights as I perceive my privileges to differ from you who do not live up to my expectations. This is the very base beginning thinking of the classic bully who has every excuse as to why he or she is not a bully.
Maureen Walsh is correct again. Do we need a rewrite? Yes.