Endorsement of civil unions flawed

You have given your endorsement to “civil unions.” This is a legal arrangement whose purpose is to grant certain privileges to homosexuals who live together. In contrast to married couples, homosexual couples do not enjoy legal advantages without hiring a lawyer, for example, setting up powers of attorney. You advocate this radical cultural and legal change in the name of equal treatment. Homosexual couples deserve “equal treatment” because they love each other.

However, heterosexual couples also deserve “equal treatment,” under your eccentric theory. Yet, the proposed law fails to protect their rights. Certainly, the partners in a cohabitating heterosexual couple can love each other. Why does the proposed law discriminate between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples?

And then, why does the law discriminate between heterosexuals who shack up and those who exchange marriage vows? The answer is perfectly reasonable. Married couples commit themselves to the raising of children, while heterosexual roommates do not. Married couples produce something valuable for society and need protection and support. Heterosexual couples undermine the safety of their children, because, by definition, their relationships are unstable. Homosexual couples produce nothing of value. Both categories of cohabitants undermine the safety of children by channeling resources away from marriage.

However, if the politicians insist on passing laws that give legal and cultural support to cohabitation on the basis of equal rights and personal declarations of “love,” logic compels consistency. “Civil unions” should apply to any and all cohabitating persons who love each other, not just homosexuals. This is an absurd conclusion, but it follows from an absurd premise: that homosexuality and heterosexuality are socially, culturally, psychologically, morally and legally equal.

Please reconsider you endorsement.

George Kocan

Warrenville