| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Defining 'marriage' III

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

Letter to the Editor
Monday, July 15, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The editorial on same-sex marriage maintains that there is a parallel between the current marriage issue and the issue of slavery. There is no such parallel!

Today there are strong forces that have redefined marriage from the traditional meaning of being a union between a man and a woman. And they want that redefinition to be included in our laws.

When slavery was outlawed in our nation, it was not a matter of redefining it. For both sides on that issue, slavery had the same meaning, namely that some persons were the property of others, who could demand any labor from them without compensation.

Marriage cannot and should not be redefined. Other structures of cohabitations should be defined in other ways.

Hans Andrae


Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. CO2 propaganda war
  2. Volkswagen’s ‘sin’
  3. Photo ID?
  4. Refugees ruse?
  5. Bright lines: Boehner’s bombshell
  6. Celebrate MLK, not day of disaster
  7. VA denies benefits
  8. Tick carriers
  9. Kill camera bill
  10. Historical precedents
  11. Trump & Coulter