Emotions Muddle Gay-Marriage Issue

* Re: “Area Lawmaker Rejects Same-Sex Marriages but Backs Partnership Role,” July 10.

Sen. Jack O’Connell’s official explanation for his issue-straddling vote (“My impression is that the term ‘marriage’ is too steeped in socio-religious traditions and mores for people to feel comfortable with its applications to gays and lesbians.”) is remarkable for its complete avoidance of any reference to thought. My own “impression” is that this issue is already sufficiently “steeped” in various “feelings” of “discomfort,” and that what we really need is for our political leaders to show us more clearly how to think, not emote, about it.

Proponents of the recognition of homosexual marriage should step up to the plate and respond to the arguments, not the emotions, of opponents of such recognition. Human beings have traditionally honored marriage because of its relations to children and ultimately because they have recognized that only in the case of married men and women does sexual activity entail the responsibility that ennobles our character and makes us able to be free. It is the reason, not mere emotion, that leads thoughtful citizens to oppose public recognition of homosexual unions. Instead of appealing to such a principle, the senator offers us his impressions of temporary comfort levels. Perhaps he should trust his constituents to be “comfortable” with a principled explanation of his vote, if there is one.

DAVID QUACKENBUSH

Oak View