Change the laws but not marriage

Whoever wrote your editorial on Feb. 17 supporting the redefinition of marriage has not considered the unintended consequences that could result for future generations, particularly the children of same-sex marriages. Who has ultimate parental responsibility for these children? Who is the “natural” parent(s)? Perhaps the author of the editorial missed the current lawsuit in Kansas where the state is seeking financial support for a child from the sperm donor who “fathered” a child for a lesbian couple who split after the birth of the child.

Why would the state want to authorize by law a family situation depriving a child of the presence of a mother or father? Each fulfills a naturally unique role in the development of a child which cannot be duplicated by the opposite sex. The existing marriage statute now forbids marriage for relatives closer than first cousin. First cousins can marry only if they are medically certified by a qualified physician that they are irreversibly infertile. By redefining marriage as outlined in the current law, a same-sex parent is never going to be able to reproduce without introduction of a surrogate sex partner. By what reason do we then forbid such incestuous same-sex marriages? Are we not discriminating against people of this mindset?

I recognize that state and federal property laws, beneficial interests (Social Security survivor and retirement benefits), and the tax code may be biased toward traditional marriages. If that is the equality we seek, and our government determines that traditional marriage does not provide for the common good, then make the changes to those laws and regulations that are needed to remove the perceived biases.

Peter Gennuso

Schaumburg