Vermont Decision Ignores Tradition

To the editors:

The staff editorial lauding "Vermont's Courageous Decision" (Editorial, Feb. 25) to allow states to include same-sex couples in their marriage statutes fails to take into account the nature of marriage.

Marriage is not simply any committed, long-term relationship--by that definition, close friends or relatives, especially those who live together, should receive the same benefits as married couples as well. Rather, we recognize that marriage is a very particular and special type of relationship, in which the spouses are truly united to each other, to the extent that in sexual intercourse they become one organism acting in unison.

This concept of marriage is not, as the staff described it, "linked only to procreation and child-rearing." While it is true that procreation is one of the ends of marriage and that a committed marriage provides a stable and healthy environment in which to raise children, marriage is also good in itself as means of uniting the spouses. A homosexual relationship simply cannot be a marriage because the unique two-in-one-flesh communion that is the distinctive characteristic of marriage is only possible between partners of the opposite sex.

Furthermore, because it has such a profound impact on society, marriage is not a purely private matter and has traditionally been regulated by the state. Marriage laws do not just permit private individuals to live together, but promote a certain lifestyle which has proven to be beneficial to society as a whole.

A law sanctioning gay marriage would not be a neutral law, but rather one that would actively promote homosexual lifestyles because it would give them benefits and social legitimacy--and would imply the falsity of the traditional conception of marriage. The state has no right to redefine marriage because the marriage community is an entity that existed prior to the state, both historically and morally.

Melissa R. Moschella '02

Feb. 25, 2000

Current Clarifies Report on McCain

To the editors:

I would like to clarify, on behalf of the Harvard Current, that we did not intend to unfairly target Ariz. Sen. John S. McCain in our coverage of his campaign (News, "McCain Ad on Porn Site, the Current Says," Feb. 25). The article is running in the section of the magazine that covers funny and offbeat news items. It is meant simply to shed light on some unintended consequences of the era of e-campaigns. In fact, many companies do not know the websites on which their banner ads appear. Yet, this is the first time such a thing has been reported to affect a presidential candidate.

Guy L. Smith '02

Feb. 25, 2000

The writer is the assistant managing editor of the Harvard Current.