I say “No” to gay marriage!

     I am vehemently opposed to gay marriage, but, I am strongly in favor of civil unions. Why? - Because, I am a traditionalist. I firmly believe that tradition matters. The song “Tradition” from “Fiddler on the Roof” strongly resonates with me. I simply don’t believe in discarding the old and accepted for some new fad.

     The word “marriage” has meaning for me. It is the binding together of a man and a woman in matrimony. For me, it has never meant the union of a man and man or a woman and a woman. For me, the term “wife” means the woman in a marriage and the term “husband” means the man in a marriage. Trying to call a man a wife or a woman a husband in a gay marriage is simply ridiculous as far as I am concerned. Similarly, where children are concerned, identifying one of the partners in a female gay marriage as the “father” strikes me as silly and stupid as does the identification of one of the partners in male gay marriage as the “mother”. A mother is a woman and a father is a man – plain and simple. The term marriage has historic, religious, and moral content that for millennia has always meant a union between a man and a woman.

     For me, the institution of marriage is dependent on its traditional definition being maintained as between a man (the husband) and woman (the wife), along with the traditional roles of the mother (the woman) and the father (the man). Civil unions uphold the institution of marriage by not interfering with it.

     As I said before, I am a very strong supporter of civil unions (or any other appropriate designation other than marriage). I believe that any two people that want to live together as legal partners (married or otherwise) should all be entitled to the same rights and benefits. A legal document so-stating should be adequate to guarantee these equal rights and benefits, both from the states, territories and districts of the United States as well as from the federal government.

     I have no desire or inclination to tell anyone else what lifestyle to live as long as their choice does not adversely affect the lives of anyone else. By the same token, I don’t believe that the government should be telling anyone what lifestyle to live or denying equal protection and benefits, no matter what their lifestyle. Religious groups are entitled to follow their beliefs, but they should not have the right to impose their beliefs on others and this applies to gays and gay marriage. Conversely, religious groups should not be forced to do what their religion prohibits – live and let live should be the rule.

     As far as I am concerned, civil unions provide an effective solution in allowing same sex couples the same benefits, rights and responsibilities of a marriage without destroying the historical and traditional definition of marriage. Demanding to change well accepted historical and traditional definitions and meanings of words and terms is a way to verbal chaos – where words simply no longer have any meaning. It also denies traditionalists their rights – what would the term “marriage” mean to an ultra-orthodox Jew or a devout Catholic if there were no differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual unions? Let’s arrive at a meaningful compromise – marriage for the traditionalists and civil unions for the non-traditionalists with equal rights for both under the law. Let’s arrive at a win-win outcome rather than forcing one group to lose if the other group wins. Civil unions seem to be a more than reasonable accommodation for both opposing points of view.

     For the reasons given above, I say:

NO to gay marriages -- YES to civil unions!

     In the interest of full disclosure, let me state that my position on gay marriage will have no influence on which presidential candidate I support or will vote for in the upcoming election. My feelings about gay marriage have little to nothing to do with politics.