To the editor,
During the past few decades there has been a great push in our nation to change the definition of marriage. This is a mistake. Same-sex unions are not marriages, nor should they ever be given the same legal standing as a marriage between a man and a woman. There are at least two reasons why same-sex unions are not, and should not be considered legally recognized marriages:
First, what interest does the state have in bestowing legal benefits on marriages in the first place? You do not have to apply for a friendship license in order to be friends with someone. The only possible reason why the state has any business in issuing marriage licenses in the first place is because the union of a man and woman in marriage is the kind of union that naturally tends to result in children. The state has an interest in the next generation. A new generation of citizens means there are more people for the state to tax. The state thus has an interest in bestowing legal benefits (such as tax breaks) upon a man and woman via the issuance of a marriage license. Now, the union of two men or two women does not and cannot possibly result in children. It is the kind of union that by its very nature is infertile. So the state has no interest and no business in legally recognizing same-sex unions as marriages. The union of a man and a woman on the other hand (whether the couple is infertile or not) is the kind of union that by its very nature is ordered towards the begetting of new offspring. Even the union of an infertile man and woman is still the kind of union that by its nature tends to result in children. Just as eating food is by its very nature ordered towards the nutrition of the body even if an impediment prevents the food from doing so, so too the union of a man in woman in marital intercourse is ordered towards offspring even if an impediment prevents such offspring from resulting. But the union of a same-sex couple cannot and is not in any sense ordered towards offspring. Same-sex unions are not marriages, and the state has no business in recognizing them as such.
Second, if the definition of marriage can be changed once, it can be changed again. If it can be changed again, then it can be changed again, and again, and again. If we can change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, then what in principle is to stop us from changing it again to polygamous unions? If it really is “discrimination” to exclude same-sex couples from marriage, then isn’t it also “discrimination” to exclude a man and three women from marriage?
It is time we take a stand for marriage. It is time we vote “YES” for the marriage amendment this November.
John Skalko II
Esko, MN
