April 12, 2013.
I think it is time to weigh in on same sex marriage.
I am against the minority changing the definition of a word that has meant the same thing for centuries. I took out my trusty Webster’s New Students Dictionary circa 1974, and the definition of marriage is as follows: 1a : the state of being married b : the mutual relationship of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby a man and a woman are joined in a special social and legal relationship for the purposes of making a home and raising a family 2: an act of marrying; esp : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union.
However, Gay Advocates are God’s creatures and deserve the same legal rights that married couples have. A Civil Union which seems to be the term of choice, is all right by me. It just seems that the rush to establish this type of legal relationship will have many unintended consequences.
We have had several centuries of case law on marriages and divorces. We have little or none for same sex unions and the dissolution of the same. Will same sex couples have the right to adopt children? There will be instances where children will be involved from a previous relationship. Who gets custody in the event of dissolution of the union? Who has to pay child support? Who is the mother or father? Can a father have a union with his son? Can a mother have a union with her daughter?
I believe that to rush into a Civil Union or whatever term is chosen (anything except marriage) until some of these questions are answered by legislation is foolish. Let us not create huge problems because we are in haste or because the minority sees an opening for their agenda.
Fred Sponseller