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