A measure before Toledo City Council would extend benefits of marriage to intimate, cohabitating, and unrelated relationships ("Council lashes out on partner benefits; Tempers flare on both sides," May 2). It would further erode society's understanding of the meaning and essential good that the social sciences have repeatedly shown only marriage can provide.
It is argued that extending such benefits is humane. Yet other domestic partnerships that merit consideration, such as elderly siblings who share living quarters and expenses, and look after each other, will not be offered these benefits.
This is less about the perceived fairness of a city, and more about advancing an ideology that condones and even encourages cohabitation and so-called gay marriage.
By extending these benefits, elected officials would send the erroneous message that all intimate relationships exist as part of some obscure marriage continuum. Marriage and family life will suffer further erosion as a result, and children will increasingly be deprived of the blessings of a father and a mother in a stable home.
Rather than obscuring and weakening the good of marriage, government should affirm, promote, and support it.
Coordinator Marriage and Family Life Diocese of Toledo Spielbusch Avenue
Limbaugh himself is untraditional
After President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage, Rush Limbaugh opined on his radio talk show that the President is going to lead a war on traditional marriage ("Gay marriage: Pastors say backlash will help Romney," May 12).
I wonder whether any one of the three women Mr. Limbaugh has been married to agrees with him.
It's not about sex, it's about equality
The writer of the May 7 Readers' Forum letter "Same-sex benefit plan immoral" makes a false equivalency in comparing the Secret Service prostitution scandal to the City of Toledo's consideration of legal benefits for people in domestic partnerships.
The writer tries to make this about sex, but the issue is equality. There are people of goodwill on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage. But this debate is about legal benefits, not sexual relations.
Comparing the debate over this legislation to the disgusting actions of the Secret Service is not only dishonest, it's also homophobic.