I read Ed Leipold's letter detailing his solution to the question of marriage equality, and while I think the most likely result of his experiment would be two childless couples due to performance anxiety, I am willing to concede his point that only the heterosexual couple could produce a child.
With that biological fact out of the way, so what?
Is he using his cute experiment to suggest that the ability to sexually reproduce should be a requirement for a marriage license? In that case, add a fertility test to the license application.
We can leave it to him and others who make this silly argument to explain to infertile straight people why they can no longer get married.
Of course, this doesn't only affect the infertile young; senior citizens who find love past their childbearing years will now have no choice but to live in sin. We can't forget those people who chose to not have children for some reason or another.
Should we employ fertility police to check up on childless married couples? Impose a time limit for reproducing before their marriage is annulled?
Of course we shouldn't, because we all realize that marriage is about a lot more than sexual reproduction.
Marriage is the public affirmation of love between two adults asking the government to legally recognize their hopefully lifelong partnership.
I seriously doubt Leipold wants to deny marriage to the other people I pointed out who can not have children, just to homosexuals - which, I am sorry, means this isn't about children but about bigotry.
Why do you care, Mr. Leipold? How exactly does marriage equality affect you in any way? No one is going to force you into a gay marriage, I promise.
You say that the controversy rages with no end in sight, but you are wrong. A quick look at the polling trends and numbers will show anyone that those on the anti-gay marriage side are fighting a losing battle.
There is an end in sight, and in a decade or two people will wonder what the fuss was about, just like with interracial marriage.
E. Joseph Grsevinsky Jr.