- The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 15, 2012

With regard to Jeffrey Kuhner’s “Obama’s homosexual America” (Commentary, May 11), if marriage is no longer limited to one man and one woman, then how does the state, as matter of reason and “equal rights” exclude polygamy, polyandry, the marriage of adults and children, the marriage of close relatives, and even more bizarre combinations?

Many summarily dismiss these possibilities, but many once dismissed homosexual “marriage” as an impossibility. If once you admit that marriage need not be limited to a man and a woman, then why shouldn’t any combination of consenting persons be allowed to marry? If 10 consenting women want to marry one man, then why not? If five consenting men and three consenting women want to “marry,” then why not? If a 12-year old girl, who already has the legal right to have an abortion, wants to marry a 50-year old man, then why not?

There are valid societal and moral reasons (if moral arguments can be asserted anymore) for prohibiting these kinds of “marriages,” but once marriage loses its special status, the burden is on the state to articulate why other forms of “marriage” ought to be invalid.

There are consequences to redefining marriage and we, including many who want to be considered “sophisticated” but aren’t accustomed to thinking about what this really means, had better be prepared for all of them.


THOMAS M. DORAN

Plymouth, Mich.