Gay marriage doesn't harm hetero marriage

There's so much to take exception with in James Finnegan's Fence Post letter on May 12, "True Marriage is one man, one woman," it's hard to know where to start.

The U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with marriage, gay or straight. Marriage laws are handled at the state level and are subject to state laws. The recent court rulings regarding marriage did not change any state constitutions as the constitutions were silent on this matter. The people of Massachusetts have had the chance to voice their opinions as they have been through an election cycle since the ruling, at which time they could have voted in legislators who could initiate the amendment process. They did not.

The role of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature. The court has a long history of striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. One need only look to Brown v. Board of Education for an excellent example of where the court stepped in to do the right thing where the state was abridging people's rights - separate but equal is not equal.

Offered up is the "traditional 2000-year-old marriage" as the ideal. For more of history than not, marriage was the transfer of property (the wife) from her father to her husband. The idea of "marriage" has changed over the years as society has changed. Women are no longer property so we are now equal partners in marriage.

Finally, the last sentence "with marriage, the stakes are too high not to" (speak out). Finally we have a point on which we can agree. I have yet to hear a cogent argument about how a gay couple's marriage affects my hetero marriage.

Mary Hunter

Carpentersville