To the editor:

Conservative folks say the primary traditional role of marriage is for procreation. Some say a marriage with no hope of procreation flies against natural law. But if Mother Nature worked that way, it would be impossible to procreate without marriage, and I have observed this is often not the case.

People don’t like to talk about it, but there’s more to the tradition: Marriage is a contract of ownership. Traditionally speaking, a woman bears the name of the man who owns exclusive rights on her reproductive capacity. It’s a guarantee she’ll carry on the lineage only of the man who paid for her.

Times and attitudes have changed little. These days, many see marriage as a pact of mutual ownership. A guarantee of lasting monogamy.

In truth, nature can guarantee none of these things. Nor can the government. That’s why this liberal thinks for once, the right is right. The government should not recognize gay marriages. The government should not be in the business of recognizing marriages at all. Tradition aside, I believe marriage is a spiritual institution first and foremost. As such, its recognition and support should be left to our spiritual communities.

Some think they can protect marriage by limiting it. But all things are growing and changing, always. Like people, institutions that don’t grow or change are dead.

It seems obvious to me that to save marriage, one should celebrate the union it signifies and the people who support the institution by entering that union … and leave the government out of it.

Melanie Schnebelen,

Lawrence