The obsolescence of marriage

Susan Estrich's July 15 column is supportive of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples on the basis of fairness and inclusivity. She cites the Today show's decision to include same sex couples in their "Modern Day Wedding" contest. (Can't wait for that show.)

Also, a Massachusetts judge's ruling that the federal government had no right to limit the state's decision to treat all marriages equally. Estrich concludes by stating, "A good wedding is a wedding where two people love each other and commit to each other. Period."

Unfortunately for Ms. Estrich, marriage law nowhere says anything about love as a condition of marriage. (Or for that matter, the requirement to have children.) As stated in her column, it only requires a contract to live together until death or divorce as a basis for the legal rights and obligations.

If the legal definition of marriage is broadened to same-sex couples, and does not require "love" as a condition, then it follows that there should be no limitation as to who can be legally married. Two spinster sisters who live together? Why shouldn't they have all the benefits of marriage, like health insurance, property rights, inheritance, etc.?

Two longtime friends? Two of any kind of adults who contract to live together until death or divorce would meet the requirement to marry. Now we are talking fairness and inclusivity. But we are also talking about the obsolescence of marriage as a core social element in our society.

Ed Duffy

Naperville