Regarding the Rev. Anthony W. Green's letter ("Marriage equality beyond dispute," April 16), let me first say that what is at issue before the Supreme Court is California's Proposition 8, which rewrote that state's Constitution to read: "only marriage between a man and woman is recognized or valid."
Since the term marriage always has been defined and understood as stated above, pure logic questions, "where is the problem?" The problem comes when people presumptuously assume same sex equals opposite sex and then build a case for rights on that basis. Given that all are free to enter into marriage in like manor as above, how is it that privileges per the 14th Amendment are abridged?
Some states have approved bonding of same-sex couples via civil unions, partnerships, etc. Such a concept seems like a proper way of then applying the equality factor and 14th Amendment in achieving all the civil rights currently bestowed on marriages. To make the jump to then challenge marriage directly, in my view, is not logical nor constitutionally valid.
Finally, continuing to apply the established definition of marriage not only makes sense biologically but is embodied in God who is the very essence of love. Giving us free will requires that love to be reciprocated freely from the heart. His word gives countless examples of how demanding he is of that love, which he sums up with: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." Hence, obedience to his word is paramount, leaving little room for progressive liberalism in the church community.
Al Walck
Colonie
