End the silly season on restricting marriage
To the editor:
I share your hope, as expressed in “Gay marriage juggernaut” (editorial, Nov. 26), “that the Nov. 6 momentum for marriage equality will continue pushing forward.” The principal argument against gay marriage, as expressed in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, is that the unique feature of marriage involves “a bodily union made possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity.”
Presumably, then, marriage should be denied to unions between men and women too old to “complement” each other. And how about all those marriages between a man and a woman who are determined never to have children, and never have them? On the other hand, gay men and lesbian women, through a consensual third party, can have children, moving closer to the traditional view of marriage than a marriage between seniors. Maybe all unions should be civil unions until a child is born. Or maybe, since this is getting sillier and sillier, everyone should be entitled to be married who take the sacred vow to love and cherish each other for the rest of their lives.
John O. Fox