Editor, The News:

A straw man argument misrepresents an opponent’s position in order to refute it more easily.

Typically, people who employ this rhetorical technique either do not comprehend the opposing position or are simply disingenuous.

Mitchel Olszak, in a column Monday, set up his own straw man by setting the First Amendment against the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment. In so doing, he does his position and his profession a disservice.

Consider the amendment’s wording, “No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.”

Olszak argues this amendment would infringe one’s freedom of religion. In truth, the amendment would not prevent churches from performing non-marital unions but would bar the Commonwealth from granting to such unions, the benefits reserved for marriage alone.

A marriage between one man and one woman holds a unique place in human relationships. Only marriage can be both unitive and procreative. That is the reality of marriage and why marriage deserves special reverence.

Societies throughout history have appreciated this fact, even those societies that have been otherwise tolerant of homosexuality.

Marriage alone is capable of creating new members of society. Accordingly, society is right to grant special status to this uniquely fruitful relationship. Extending those rights to non-marital relationships isn’t a matter of fairness. Doing so would fly in the face of objective reality.

The Marriage Protection Amendment codifies what is written in our hearts and our bodies. Sadly in our society where, for example, political candidates euphemistically refer to the murder of unborn children as “reproductive justice,” the codification of this natural law has become necessary.

Marriage is fundamentally different from every other human relationship and should be so recognized.

James R. Williams

New Wilmington