I’m afraid I have to take issue with the logic behind Nick Hemenway’s article, “The Other Side of Referendum I,” which ran on Tuesday. Nick doesn’t hide the fact that he clearly opposes same-sex marriage. To this he says, “We believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, which is more than just legal definitions and rights written on paper.” However, in the very next paragraph, Nick contradicts himself when he voices his opposition to Referendum I, because the referendum would “grant same-sex couples the same benefits, protections and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses.” He continues to say, “The only difference I see between this and marriage is the name.” So Nick initially believes marriage is something that transcends the law, but then says giving same-sex couples the same rights under the law is the exact same thing as marriage. Which is it Nick? You can’t justify your argument by making both these claims.
To those who sincerely believe marriage should be solely a union between a man and a woman, then vote “Yes” on the marriage amendment. There’s nothing I can say that would change your mind on that. However, if you also feel marriage is something that is separate from the law and transcends above it, then you shouldn’t have any qualms with just giving same-sex couples their basic governmental rights as U.S. citizens. Otherwise, it does then appear you have a separate agenda from just protecting the sanctity of marriage, as it seems you also desire to ensure homosexuals become second-class citizens.