All citizens should support the marriage amendment.
First, the definition is valid, useful, precise, informational and long-standing.
Second, it is a simple necessity. A myriad different academic, governmental, business and interested groups will track the “different types of human organizational choices” anyway to count, chart, feed into matrixes and study. So let’s not be hypocritical. The difference does, just as you naturally think, make a difference.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Third, it is the civil thing to do if we are really going to honor what it means to live in a pluralistic society. We cannot do that by laying logic aside and dismissing differences that matter in fact and to other citizens. Don’t forget that the people who wish to, rightly, fight for the validity of the one man-one woman definition are people and citizens as well. They have standing just as members of GLBTQA communities.
The members of the GLBTQA communities love their distinctions and definitions. And they have fought hard for recognition. It does not make sense that anyone would wish to pretend that the one woman-one man marriage definition is not also important enough to preserve.
Chuck Hucks, Cary