A coalition of same-sex marriage proponents are banding together to fight a proposed state marriage amendment. The members of this coalition don’t want Hoosiers to decide for themselves how Indiana should define a marriage.
They are quick to oppose the traditional historical, and natural definition of one man and one woman, but yet offer none of their own. Would someone please step up to the plate and tell us what a better definition would look like? I assure you, anything offered would be vulnerable to the same criticisms of inequality and bigotry. There is no possible definition of marriage that would not eliminate a whole class of people in one way or another.
The implicit argument being made is that marriage should be open to any two adults who love each other and are committed, whether heterosexual or homosexual. But how is this not discriminatory? Why only two? Why only adults? Why only people? Or for that matter, why must there be love and commitment? By their own standards, any definition proposed would not be truly equal for all. The efforts to expand the understanding of marriage, however innocent the intentions may be, will eventually render both the institution and the concept utterly meaningless.
WENDELL BRANE Fort Wayne