In the letter entitled “Replace marriage with civil unions” Schultz writes, “but beyond [religious beliefs], I’d really like to hear one, solid way that homosexual marriage in any way interferes with another person’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.”

Here’s a reason: For any society to work well, there must be rules that govern it. It doesn’t matter how those rules are decided upon or if they are generally favorable, but just that they exist.

But when rules exist, individual rights, at some level, are going to be trampled on. A society, by definition, must transcend the individual.

Currently, the defining line for marriage is between one man and one woman. But, wherever you draw the line, certain individuals are going to be prejudiced against it. And when you set the precedent of changing a previously defined and generally accepted term, you open yourself up to additional individual scrutiny.

If we did legalize gay marriage, what is to stop those who practice polygamy from using the same argument to sue for their individual rights? This line of thinking could cause the entire collapse of the identity of marriage. Then, when marriage means everything, it will actually mean nothing.

Luckily, we live in a country where we can (generally) freely voice our opinions on issues and try to actually change our society. But we must be careful what we wish for when we do such things.

We must look ahead to tomorrow regarding our decisions today. No matter what decision is made, some will still be outside the legally accepted. So we must be willing to accept our decision no matter where the line is drawn. The individual, although great, must submit to society. But when the individual reigns, anarchy ensues.

Here, hopefully, is a non-religious answer to your question.

Michael Snodgrass

Junior

Mechanical Engineering