Dear Editor,
This is in response to Benjamin Blessing’s letter “Marriage not meant for gays.”
In what way does a civil union remove the sanctity of a marriage?
First, sanctity is a term applied in a religious sense. Homosexuals are seeking marriage in a legal sense, which is different from religious unions.
Second, the sanctity of marriage is not threatened by sexual preference, but by a clash of cultures – each sharing what they think a marriage should be.
Marriage is not a centralized idea; it comes from many different conceptions from many different cultures. A civil union, it seems, just adds the cultural variety already in place (from traditional, arranged marriages to contemporary, Vegas spontaneity) by allowing the idea of same sex couples to spend their lives together in a legal sense.
I fail to see how allowing a legal union of homosexual couples “craps things up.” They’re not taking any rights away, they’re just asking for some of their own. This has no effect on our ability to carry out our everyday lives.
The argument not to allow same-sex marriage presented is based on Blessing’s own religious point of view. Blessing said, “In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race.” Does this mean that God frowns upon unions that don’t produce offspring?
Furthermore, does God hate marriages of people that aren’t Christian? This is not substantial evidence to maintain the oppression of a group of people.
As I stated, legal marriage is what homosexuals are seeking. They want to be awarded the civil rights (not privileges) of any heterosexual union, from adoption to bequeathal.
It is not absurd to request rights that should already be in place for them.
Furthermore, just because Blessing has a friend that’s gay doesn’t make him “gay friendly.” That’s a statement that’s thrown around too often. It’s as though hateful statements against the gay community can be nullified by having a friend who belongs to that community.
It doesn’t exactly work that way. If he were “gay friendly,” he would understand that his gay friend should have the same kinds of rights as heterosexuals, without worrying that it’s gonna “crap things up” for society’s conception of marriage.
Reading his letter reminds me of things that happened in the ’60s, regarding mixed race unions. People feared that allowing such unions would cause the demise of morality.
Well, it didn’t.
Hollie Hill

Author