Letter to the editor: Please vote noMuch discussion supporting the proposed constitutional amendment seeking to define marriage as “only a union of one man and one woman” revolves around the role of children in marriage.
By: Fran Kaliher, Two Harbors, Lake County News Chronicle
Much discussion supporting the proposed constitutional amendment seeking to define marriage as “only a union of one man and one woman” revolves around the role of children in marriage. A website supporting the amendment asks, "Why has virtually every society throughout history defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman? The answer can be summarized in one word: children.”
Anthropologists could challenge the premise of that question. But if children were the sole purpose of marriage, does this mean amendment supporters object to marriage between people beyond child-bearing age? Or people who for any number of other reasons are unable to bear children or choose not to?
Many people subscribe to the notion that children are best raised by both a father and a mother. But does that mean they are willing to deny a child the security of a stable relationship between whatever combinations of parental figures the child is lucky enough to have? Many gay couples have children, whether by conscious planning or one of them coming into the relationship with children from a previous marriage or partnership.
Passing this ill-conceived amendment will not prevent children from being raised by gay parents. Why not do what we can to support those parents and children and show them the respect they deserve as equal members of our society?
Please Vote No on what I call the anti-family amendment. Show your support of all children by refusing to limit their security and potential based only on the genders of their loving parents.
Tags: opinionMore from around the web