-- MARILYN YOUNG, Pasco
Just what is the basic definition of "marriage" anyhow? Every dictionary I've consulted simply says that it's a union of a man and a woman -- period. That's what it's meant for a very long time and that's what it still means for most people today. Where does any legislative body get the authority to take a commonly used word and give it the opposite meaning?
That dictionary definition does not include the concept of "love," rather it encompasses arranged marriages, marriages of convenience and love unions. While arranged marriages generally occur in other countries, some of those folks do move to the U.S. Marriages of convenience are rarely discussed and likely were more common years ago when people lived in more isolated communities, but many still occur today (read Dear Abby lately?). Many couples remain married after "love" has flown the coop "for the sake of the kids" or for financial reasons or because of social pressures. What will the word "marriage" really mean if R-74 passes?
While R-74 does allow religious institutions and clergy to refuse to perform same sex "marriages" if they wish, no such protection is given to anyone else -- including event centers, photographers, etc.,. should they have the same objections. What are going to be the other consequences of this proposed redefinition of marriage -- both legal and social? Seems like there are an awful lot of unanswered questions. The consequences of passing R-74 are no where near as simple as the Herald and other supporters would like people to believe.