Regarding Walter Eno’s Another View commentary on same-sex marriage (March 23):

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not “significantly” redefine marriage; in fact, it doesn’t redefine marriage at all. Marriage is, and always will be, the legal joining of two people who are committed to each other – people like my partner and me, who have been together for 18 years and are raising a daughter together.

Allowing us to marry will not change marriage any more than laws allowing multiracial couples to marry changed marriage in the 1960s.

Mr. Eno gives several examples of unintended consequences, which upon closer examination are really people claiming “discrimination” when in fact they are examples of groups or people not wanting to follow state laws.

Massachusetts has allowed same- sex couples to marry for 12 years. Canada has allowed same-sex marriage for 13 years. There have not been catastrophic consequences as Mr. Eno suggests. The only real consequence of these laws is that thousands of same-sex couples have happily married.

Mr. Eno suggests that voicing his religious opinion will cause him to end up in the “slammer.” I ask him respectfully to give us even one example of this occurring in the United States.

The same-sex marriage referendum this November will allow same-sex couples to enter into civil marriages. Mr. Eno’s church will continue to marry couples under the definition it decides upon, as it is now.

Our great Constitution, which allows Mr. Eno his freedom of speech, also does not allow him to define marriage for people outside his own church.