To the Editor:

Consider the plight of a young woman who is having trouble paying the rent on her apartment and has a grandfather who is getting feeble and shouldn’t be alone. Then there are two brothers who share a business, both confirmed bachelors. In each of these two cases, it makes good sense for them to share living quarters. In each case, these people might wish to name each other as next of kin in emergencies or in case of death.

There are innumerable possible examples of people, not necessarily related, who might choose to share their domicile and expenses without the religious connotation of holy matrimony.

The sacrament of holy matrimony is intended to sanctify the union of one man and one woman and legitimize the resultant offspring, if any. Any other union does not require God’s blessing and is not in any way related to holy matrimony. Any same-gender union is not marriage and any marriage is not samegender. Same-sex unions do not result in offspring except by artificial means. I consider “same-sex marriage” to be an oxymoron similar to “working vacation.” Each is a selfcontradictory expression.

I support the right of any two people to choose to live together, and would support legislation that would bestow on such people all the perquisites now accorded to married people. That includes filing a joint income tax return, next-of-kin status for medical considerations, joint financial considerations and those things that relate to end-of-life situations.

The term “civil union” has gained disfavor among some people. Whenever two people choose to share their lives in a situation other than traditional marriage, the union could be called by any of several names. I suggest “commitment.” But please,do not call it marriage.

Robert Meixell
Westport Island