Letter to the editor: Marriage claims aren’t so preposterousI find Patty Minehart’s charge of hate speech in response to my recent letter to be unfounded and offensive.
I find Patty Minehart’s charge of hate speech in response to my recent letter to be unfounded and offensive. I presented a factually based argument on how removing the one man/one woman marriage standard in Canada led to polygamists seeking to have their marriages legalized. I pointed out that defending against such changes – as well as any other adult-to-adult marriage one might imagine – may have no legal basis if the precedent of one man/one woman marriage is abandoned. Our courts may be burdened with countless challenges.
She asserts, “I am sorry that he believes marriage equity could lead to a world where we would allow a father to marry his son or daughter.”
This scenario isn’t as preposterous as she implies. If any two adults can marry, there may be financial incentives for many pairs to want to legally define their relationship as “marriage.” Unemployed offspring without health benefits may find a ready solution by “marrying” another family member. Tax and governmental benefits may lead others to “marry.”
What she calls marriage equity, I call marriage re-definition. It is a proposed change to the very building blocks of our society. To raise questions about what the impact will be on our courts and social structure is not “hate speech.” It is freedom of speech and social responsibility.
Vote yes on the marriage amendment.
Kerry Navara - Woodbury