“Same-sex marriage?” What a misnomer! How oxymoronic! This language must be driving lexicographers mad. For centuries most in the civilized world have recognized the definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Now the wordsmiths are being asked to modify same by corrupting it with language that incorporates marriage as existing between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. As has been suggested: You can hang a sign on a horse that reads “cow,” but it is still a horse. Word construction means something.

The implication of this inane phrase, “same-sex marriage,” flies in the face of tradition, Scripture, biology and, yes, common sense. And that is to say nothing of its potential unintended consequences. It would seem that the criteria for “same-sex marriage” — pretermitting for the nonce the alleged “legal right” argument — is that no one should be deprived of their capacity to express “love” via marriage.

If that be the case it would presumably follow that if a son professed love for his father or a daughter for her mother, they should be able to marry. Ditto polygamy and polyandry. One man can affirm love for two or more women, and one woman can affirm love for two or more men. Plainly, the “right” or “love” stated argument is elastic, it being able to be stretched to cover just about any “marital” situation.

And surely we don’t countenance creating a special “class” for “gays.” Does not the law proscribe special class status — to wit, discrimination? But is not that what is being asked by the proponents of “same-sex marriage”?

Ron Rickerfor

subrogation manager, retired