Marriage definition is time tested

Mr. George Blinick states that “marriage is a legal contract” in his Sept. 2 Fence Post opinion. He continues by defining his limits as to who can execute this legal contract. He limits it to two people of legal age. Why the limit on the number of people who can participate in a single “marriage contract”? Isn’t that legally discriminating against those who feel a marriage contract can encompass the love and respect of more than two people? His definition leaves it open for a man to marry his mother, a woman to marry her father, a brother to marry his brother, a daughter to marry her mother, etc.

If marriage were truly just a “legal contract,” then all these possible combinations would be readily acceptable to the human community. Since they are not, one must assume that there is something more to a marriage than simple legal obligations to another person. Religion defines marriage as an unbreakable covenant between an unrelated man and an unrelated woman for the duration of their life. It is through such a union that families, the cornerstone of society, are created. The traditional family is under constant pressure from a society willing to overlook the religious definition of marriage and from individuals who fail to live up to the commitment they make when entering a marriage covenant.

This commentary is not a criticism of people whose marriages have failed. Many of them have worked to maintain their marriage commitment only to be met with hostility and/or betrayal from their spouse. Those individuals deserve our love, support and prayers as they work to re-establish an order in their life after their divorce. Rather, this commentary is intended as a statement to support a definition of marriage that has been the foundation of civilized society for centuries.

Peter Gennuso

Schaumburg