Marriage, but not by the book

Ever since I read Alexander Ewing’s response to my letter to the editor of Oct 26th, I have wanted to write this letter. Although said letter made no attempt to adress social policy, Mr. Ewing was certainly correct in stating that homosexuals are treated differently than heterosexuals, in this country, and I imagine across the globe. More recently Joe Sydlowski dissected, from the from the body of perceived problems, the issue of marriage. Even as both men recognize a legitimate concern in the lack of “equal treatment under the law,” just as anyone with a brain might, neither proposes a solution for discussion. Being an opinionated, staunch conservative, you can bet I have one to discuss! Due to the phrases “…endowed by our Creator…” and “…created equal…”, written by our forefathers, for the purposes of this argument we will assume the human species divine creation, and those said writers and signers of our nations forming documents a belief of the same.? At the Web site, the word marriage has 4 different definitions, the first of which is relevant. But that first one also has 4 sub-definitions. “A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same- sex marriage.” being the last of those. In my father’s 1955, 3000 page Webster’s, there is no such inference to include like-gendered matrimony, although there is reference to polygamy. For the bulk of modern history, and all of ancient history, marriage defined a union only between men and women.The earliest mention I know of occurs in Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Wife infers husband; together they infer marriage. This was 6000 years before the Feds granted financial incentives to married couples.? Those who appear to have concern over the plight of the homosexual living as a U.S. citizen, and continue to spew the same old rhetoric without offering a solution to the problem they identify, do so because they don’t want a solution. In fact, providing one would rob them of an issue to use when attempting to further their own political aspirations. They are the Monday morning quarterbacks of social policy. Always talking, never walking. To solve the issue of unequal treatment towards homosexuals by Washington, we need not change the true meaning of marriage, instituted by God, or write 1,400 new laws to deal with civilly unionized homosexuals. I suggest a simple solution to a simple problem that, finacially speaking, would equalize males and females alike, Christian and Jew, no matter their sexual deviances. I hereby propose that the Federal Government rescind its recognition of marriage, thereby rendering moot current applicable laws, and placing the citizenry upon a level “paying” field, thus rightfully returning to God what is God’s.?

Jay Vinson?