It’s all about freedom, right?

Dear Editor:

We should be grateful last week for the efforts of the ECM editorial board in simplifying the debate surrounding the marriage amendment.

It’s true that only a man and a woman can beget a child, which in turn implies the concept of family and hence the relationship of the father and mother a marriage.  It is also true that marriage and family have been the basis for a healthy society forever. The notion that children do best when raised by parents in a traditional marriage is a ‘compelling point,’ according to the ECM board. However, we were rightly reminded that these issues are ultimately not the most important. The issue of whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, they argued, all comes down to one word: freedom.

There is no doubt that a same-sex couple is capable of committed love, of looking after one another and being faithful to each other. In fact, that’s the way I feel toward my niece. I love my niece very much and feel that I am capable of having such a committed relationship with her, but that darn freedom thing is getting in my way, too. Why can’t I marry her?

The neighbors where I used to live got along splendidly well. Bob and Sally shared everything with their friend, Jerry, who lived across the street from them. They went to movies together, dined out as a group, looked after each other’s homes and even helped each other out financially if the need arose. In fact, the three of them were so close that they desired nothing less than marriage—all three of them living in a committed, forever relationship. Yes, you guessed it, that freedom thing got in their way, too. It’s just not fair. In fact, it’s a glaring example of an oppressive society.

Hate to stop now as I am thinking of all kinds of potential “marriages” that are being suppressed. After all, it’s all about freedom, right?

Steve Zabinski