What about Fido? Let’s give some thought to our idea of marriage

Who cares if the traditional definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman? This is the 21st century.

If two men want to marry, let them, and let our churches and states bless their marriages. If two women want to marry, likewise.

Come to think of it, if a couple wants to get hitched and have a friend join in, why not have a three-way marriage? The traditional definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman, but why be bound by tradition? Let’s think outside the box here.

Some of us, by the way, are just ga-ga over our dogs and cats. We might want to establish an eternal bond with them, too. It isn’t the traditional definition of marriage, but so what? If we want to bring Fido and Snookums officially into the family, we have the right, and the state should give it sanction.

Does this sound crazy to you?

Of course it does. But you can be certain that if homosexual “marriages” gain official recognition, the tampering with the concept of marriage will not stop at same-sex unions.

The meaning of marriage will become more and more vague. In time, we won’t even recognize the institution.

Our families are the nucleus of our society. As marriage becomes less and less a union of a man and woman — mother and father — there is an equal diminution of stability and order.

Even setting aside the Biblical references to marriage as between a man and woman, there are logical reasons to resist the pressure of mush-brained nincompoops to legalize any other type.

Published in Editorials on July 16, 2004 11:53 AM