People, not select few, make marriage changes

The definition of marriage has become a very divisive issue. Because we differ on such issues is no excuse for calling fellow citizens with opposing views ignorant cowards and bigots (Jack Pilling letter, Dec. 30). It is a shame that some people who feel their own political positions threatened must resort to such name calling.

When I was young, almost everyone we knew had a father and a mother. For thousands of years and in every culture, we knew that anything about a family consisted of a father and mother and their children, and a marriage was the precursor to that established family. In all of our history, a marriage license provided space for the name of one man and one woman.

Could it be that even before recorded history, the stability offered by a family made up of a man and a woman and their children provided the highest probability of success for the survival of the species?

In America, if we are to change the definition of an institution such as marriage, such changes are to be made by we the people, not by a small group of judges legislating from the bench. In Iowa we decided that issue when we passed a law that made clear the definition of a marriage. Every effort has been taken to make sure we the people will not have an opportunity to express our opinion again.

Merrill Ludvigson

Cedar Rapids