I expect that nasty replies will follow…

The term marriage has always applied to the partnership union of a man and a woman. Only in recent years have activist entry modifications appeared in dictionaries removing the mention of gender in these unions, but clearly this word marriage has always been reserved for the spiritual union of man and woman.

Let’s keep it so. I was verbally assaulted by a person today for suggesting that no one’s rights had been abridged by California’s adoption of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage”. Apparently I cannot read between the lines of the intent of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I am utterly opposed to any denial of rights to those who choose civil union with another person of the same gender, but I see no denial in reserving the word marriage and its forms for the union of simply one man and one woman.

Those who believe otherwise wish to extend the boundaries of language to suit conditions for which the word is inappropriate. If same-sex civil unions confer the same societal privileges as received by those who marry, then there can be no discrimination simply because of a word label. This particular label is of such significance to those to whom it applies or may apply, that only discord and significant division of our society must necessarily follow what those who believe in “marriage” would consider unacceptable debasement of the word.

This urgent forcing of the adoption of an unnatural definition to the meaning of that word makes me distrust the motives of those who would do so. It would not be the first time that society has been led astray in the name of “inalienable rights”.

Please attack me at your convenience.