I would like to respond to Frederick R. Bedell Jr.’s May 14 letter “State should uphold the traditional meaning of marriage.”
I am the most neutral observer on this issue. I fit all the criteria that Bedell has laid out for the betterment of society. I have been married for over 50 years to my wife. I have two grown children and three grandchildren.
One of the problems with Bedell’s argument was just in the news in the last few days, and that is the increase of single women giving birth. Would he force them to marry the fathers of their babies so they could fit his mold?
Is he saying the multitudes of single mothers do not have the capacity to raise children properly? If so, shouldn’t we take them away from such parents?
This group contained my mother, who was widowed at a young age with five children. Should I take it as a slap against me that I was not brought up “properly”? All four of my sisters are college graduates. We are talking about the 1940s−50s, so it was a spectacular achievement for a single mother. I am insulted for my mother, as she would and should be, at his statements.
Bedell left out a whole subsection of married people. The ones in bad, unhappy andâ„or abusive marriages. Would he make it a law that all marriages be happy?
Would he make it mandatory for everyone to get married? He seems to feel that is the best thing for society. By the way, how does he feel about polygamist sects?
Marriage is not a natural phenomenon. Marriage is a design of man, not nature. The natural urge is to procreate. There is little monogamy in nature. Females look for the most advantageous mate in order to promulgate the species.
Finally, there should be nothing in the law to define marriage. Marriage, for all intents and purposes, is a religious concept. Keep all religion out of the law.
Jerrold Schreibersdorf
Douglaston
