Marriage, some argue, is defined as the union of one man and one woman, or, if you are Newt Gingrich, then one wife or two wives or three and perhaps a mistress or two intervening. And then there was King David (Old Testament) who clearly had more than one wife.
Historically, marriage was about the transfer of property, inheritance and power. That two people should love each other as a prerequisite to marriage was greeted with ridicule. Shakespeare and company thought romantic love as the precursor to tragedy.
Nowadays, we have a surfeit of laws to take care of the orderly transfer of money and property. And we talk on about the fundamental and transformative power of love. But given the divorce rate in this country, one can hardly believe that a “defense of marriage” statuate can be viewed as anything but a mockery. One is either forced to back the creation of a law that absolutely forbids divorce under any circumstances (“‘til death do us part”) or to accept two people, deciding to form a union based upon love and optimism, as admirable and to be encouraged.
Look to your own marriage(s) and let those who profess to love one another be allowed to marry and love one another.
Ian Robertson
Lynnwood
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
