Dear Mr. Anderson,
I am deeply concerned and offended by your remarks that marriage is to be defined by people that are able to have children together.
Not only is this a poor attempt at blocking same-sex marriage, but it is incredibly offensive and very insensitive to heterosexual couples who, for whatever reason, are unable to conceive. Do you mean to say that the marriage of an infertile couple is not valid? Or a couple that has passed their childbearing years?
Many of these couples already struggle with the fact that they are unable to have children. Your comments did no more than rub salt in an already ever-present wound. How dare you.
I do not believe that the sole purpose of a marriage is procreation. Maybe it’s just my personal opinion, but it is my belief that a marriage is a commitment resulting from two people who love each other and are willing to spend their life with their chosen partner, for better, for worse. If they happen to have children, that is between them. If they cannot or chose not to have children, that is also between them. It does not make their bond any less real, any less valid.
I also strongly believe that trying to ban same-sex marriage is extremely unconstitutional. As for the argument that it threatens the sanctity or institution of marriage - what does that even mean?? I find it hard to believe that the skyrocketing divorce rates and rampant infidelity that occurs not just among “regular” folks but high-profile individuals, celebrities, athletes, politicians - how does this, in any way, shape, or form, promote the sanctity of marriage? Straight people obviously can’t get it right… and yet how are we to be so high and mighty as to proclaim that this is the only way?
No, that argument is full of fallacy and is quite contemptible to even try to justify.
What you are trying to do is legislate hate. I was so proud of my state when the decision was made to allow same-sex marriage, and now I am disappointed. There is no such thing as separate-but-equal… Civil unions are not the same, and even at that, I feel like it’s a consolation prize that has been offered to homosexual couples. It’s telling them that they aren’t good enough, aren’t human enough, to enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else. And that is wrong.
The argument of tradition is weak, also. Tradition also dictates that women are property, women can’t vote. Tradition dictates that interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Tradition allows families to sell their daughters, to bind them into an arranged marriage. The very idea of bringing any of those “traditions” back would horrify any decent human. No, tradition isn’t a good argument at all. This is the twenty-first century; things change, things evolve. We should be able to evolve with them.
The last one, then, is that of religion. I am aware that most religions don’t necessarily condone same-sex pairings; that is up to the religion, and, ultimately, the individual churches. The legalization of same-sex marriage does not require religious institutions to marry anyone that they do not wish to. However, this is a state issue. As such, the line between church and state should remain firm. That is the very core of our country’s laws. It is not right (nor is it legal) to try to legislate your personal beliefs and morality upon the population at large. The whole point of this country is freedom - that includes the freedom to love, the freedom to make a commitment. The freedom to marry whomever you chose.
I fail to see how any argument against same-sex marriage can be justified. Furthermore, I feel that you should issue an apology to those you have offended with your insensitive comments - to the infertile couples, to the childless couples. For all the couples you have implied whose marriage, whose partnership, is not valid.
Sincerely,
Kelly
