Letter: Why not more than two marrying?

For thousands of years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. Now the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if the preservation of such a concept of marriage is constitutional.

It has been argued that to prohibit homosexual “marriage” is a denial of some “right,” whether constitutional, civil, fundamental or personal. The Associated Press reports that gay marriage supporters will argue that there is a “fundamental constitutional right to marry for all citizens.” The issue is the right of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In order to be successful, the homosexual lobby must convince the Supreme Court to eliminate the concept of one man and one woman.

However if “man” and “woman” are eliminated from the definition of marriage, why not eliminate the “one” and “one”? Should not all citizens have the constitutional right to marry? Two or three or more?

If it is an unconstitutional denial of rights to prohibit two gay or lesbian citizens to marry, why is it not a similar denial of constitutional rights for three or more to enjoy the same fictional constitutional right?

What is the legal justification to deny “marriage” to the following:

  • Three or more men.
  • Three or more women.
  • Two or more men and one woman.
  • Two or more women and one man.
  • Two or more men and two or more women.

However, the prerequisite must always be that all members in the group must be committed to one another.

Richard T. Regan

retired attorney

Slidell