Marriage amendment is unnecessary
To the editor:
The two letters about the marriage amendment in the March 9 edition were very good. They did not pontificate but simply restated religious teaching that has established the tradition of marriage.
Marriage is not a social act, it is a religious sacrament ordaining that a man and a woman are “no longer two, but one” for the unique privilege of procreation. This is not possible in a “union” between two men or two women. Hence, their union is not a “marriage.”
Unfortunately, many couples (man and woman) do not enter into marriage to live together. This is a convenient relationship as it is easy to end the relation and the responsibility for their actions. Other than for the financial obligation created and more often ignored, there is no legislation against this type of “marriage.”
As stated, there is “no need to vote on an amendment to define marriage.” Society does not require a constitutional amendment to legislate what is a marriage and what is not. This is adequately established by religion and tradition.
Also, a “Constitutional Amendment” would be an encroachment on the separation of church and state. I am more interested in protecting the Constitution than in this unnecessary argument.
Incidentally, I have been married for 62 years and we have nine law-abiding married children.