One of the most bigoted and ignorant letter that I have read... and in the Wall Street Journal, that normally does not hold these opinions, even grants benefits to same sex partners...
Institution of Marriage
April 1, 2005; Page A11
Rev. Brad Wishon ("Who Are We Harming1," Letters to the Editor, March 15) challenges Robert F. Nagel ("Supreme Chaos2," editorial page, March 7) "to name one harmful consequence resulting from" gay marriage. I think I can name three.
First, I assume that gay married couples get some financial benefits in terms of income taxes, survivors' benefits, etc., just like man-woman married couples. Whoever is paying it is harmed by gay marriage.
Secondly, I assume gay married couples will have increased rights in adopting children. Since it is already difficult for man-woman couples to adopt, gay marriage will make it even harder. Those man-woman couples who are not able to adopt, or who must spend more time and money doing so, are harmed by gay marriage.
One might also wonder what effect it would have on mothers who are considering putting their babies up for adoption. How would knowing that your son could be adopted by two gay men affect your decision? I'm not sure what, if any, harm would be done, but I'd guess it would affect behavior.
Thirdly, and probably most importantly, gay marriage redefines the institution of marriage. As the meaning of marriage is expanded, it is also diluted. Just like awarding first-place gold medals to all Olympic athletes or giving perfect SAT scores to all college applicants would devalue the medals and SAT scores, gay marriage would devalue marriage for all non-gay married couples. Eventually, whatever benefit man-woman couples get from marriage would be lessened.
None of this means gay marriage should be prohibited. But to pretend it would bestow only benefits and no costs is unrealistic.
Randall Hoven
Alton, Ill.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111232239815495195,00.html