Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, March 31, 2005

Sacred unions’

March 31, 2005

Advertisement

To the editor:

Those in favor of the proposed Kansas marriage amendment fundamentally argue that the amendment would protect the "sanctity" of marriage. The assumption is then that heterosexual unions are inherently "sacred" and that homosexual unions are not. It is interesting that these arguments rest solely on gender distinctions -- they avoid what, in my view, should be the pillar of a "marriage" and that is the love and commitment between two people.

If the amendment passes, I, as a gay male with a partner of four years, would be able to be legally married to Britney Spears by an Elvis impersonator in a drive-through Las Vegas wedding chapel. This marriage could be annulled a few hours later and, in the spirit of Elizabeth Taylor, I could marry again a half dozen times.

The point is that proponents of the gay marriage ban are concerned solely about the gender of the person I marry. They do not care if I marry a complete stranger in a drive-through window. That is somehow "sacred," yet the expression of my love and commitment to someone I have trusted and loved for years through good times and bad is an affront to that sanctity. Let us think about that when we go to the polls on April 5.

Brandon Dupont,

Lawrence

Commenting has been disabled for this item.