Definition of marriage at heart of debate

Published:

The Record-Courier's Jan. 27 editorial, "High court likely to decide gay vows issue," suggests there is some confusion regarding the core of the issue. It is not equal protection before the law. Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The core issue is the definition of marriage, which since our founding, involved one man and one woman.

Judge Timothy Black's ruling that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away," fails to recognize that for Ohio, no marriage existed. Ohio's recognition of other states' marriages involving cousins or minors all were opposite-sex marriages. Thus, Ohio is not being inconsistent.

Judge Black also stated the right to remain married is recognized as a fundamental liberty in the U.S. Constitution, which also refers to the union of a man and a woman.

The heart of the issue is one's definition of marriage. If sexual preference and "love" are to be the only criteria for legal marriage, then all types of unions must be allowed -- group unions, close relatives, etc. All of these can also claim equal protection.

The law legitimately treats different individuals differently. Society does not award driving licenses to the blind, nor sell guns to children, since this poses danger to themselves and others. Same-sex couples are not the same as heterosexual couples, and thus may be treated differently for similar reasons.

Raymond J. Adamek, Kent

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • Definition of marriage at heart of debate?????

    Since the Creator of the Universe invented/instituted marriage, and we Americans claim we are One Nation Under God, our founding fathers believed in the Creator, his teachings are at the foundation of this Great Nation, President Obama had 2 Bibles at his inaguration. And after every speech President Obama says May God Bless America.

    The heart of the marriage debate is "Are we as a Nation going to reject Gods definition of marriage"? Are we going to lean on our own understanding and decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.

    Why don't we let the Judge of the Supreme Court of Heaven decide the case?

    Read Gods Law Book

  • Please excuse my typo's/misspellings, I was in a hurry.

  • Considering the aurgument simply as " people who are gay have the same right to marry opposite sex as heterosexuals" would easily be challenged as gender discrimination. The term "Marriage" relating to secular beliefs, is not at issue in the law. The term marriage as it affects over 1100 Federal civil rights not including State granted rights, is why the term is at issue. Is a person who is gay, a different class citizen under the law?

     In theheart of the case Judge Black is ruling on, was a married couple who resided in Ohio. They had been together over 20 years. One member of this union had Lou Gehrig's disease and was dying. Before he died, the couple raised money to fly to Maryland on a plane able to support his medical equipment, landed, got married on the plane, and returned to Ohio. The reason for the legal challenge? Allowing the two to be laid to rest together. The family cemetary plot only allows decendants or spouses. So, recognition of the marriage on the death certificate, allows them to share the cemetary plot when the other is layed to rest.

    Reducing a person to a "sexual preference" shows a limited capacity for empathy of a human being. Reducing a life commitment of two human beings, that is harmless to others, to a drivers license for a person who is blind is uncivil at least.Even the American Sociological Society states that sociologists are to  respect the rights, dignity, and worth of all people.They do not tolerate any forms of discrimination based on age; gender; race; ethnicity; national origin; religion; sexual orientation; disability; health conditions; or marital, domestic, or parental status.  They include sexual orientation (not "preference" as if it is a menu at a sex restraurant).

    To John (deceased) and James it is related to the core issue of equal protection.

  • All true.

  • Excellent letter. I agree completely.