Letter to the editor: Consider ramifications of a failed marriage amendmentOn TV I have been hearing a lot of nice sounding platitudes about why we should vote against the marriage amendment, but I haven’t heard anything about the realities that changing the definition of marriage would bring.
On TV I have been hearing a lot of nice sounding platitudes about why we should vote against the marriage amendment, but I haven’t heard anything about the realities that changing the definition of marriage would bring. Several years ago in Canada, after they legalized homosexual marriage, several polygamists brought suit to also legalize polygamy, which still carried a five year prison sentence. They argued, “If homosexuals can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?"
This is a valid question. Polygamy has been around about as long as marriage has. If we remove the thousands of years-old marriage standard of one man and one woman, what will the new standard be? One can only assume that it is two adults. That sounds reasonable but what about the polygamists? Aren’t they being discriminated against because of who they love? After all, if there is nothing God-given or special about the one man/one woman standard, what is special about the two-adult standard?
Will there be any limitations on the two-adult standard? Let’s say a father finds a financial advantage to marry his adult son or just has a special love relationship with him. Are we going to tell them no—they cannot marry? They are two adults. How about the same scenario with his adult daughter? Brother and sister? How can we tell them no? If they promise not to have children, there will not be any grounds for legal restrictions based on genetic concerns in regard to their offspring.
Rather than fixing discrimination, removing the one man/one woman standard for marriage will only open a can of worms that will plague our courts for years.
Vote yes on the marriage amendment.
Kerry Navara - Woodbury