Marriage then, marriage now

Our present "war of words" is an etymological conundrum on which the media loves to feed. It deals with the term "marriage." The fight is between a new secular definition of any type of union versus the traditional historical definition of marriage, which sanctifies the physical union of a man and a woman in order to procreate and provide for the future.

We have had two elections in California, and the vote decidedly has been to maintain the historically, centuries-old, etymological definition of marriage. The traditional term of "marriage," meaning the union of a man and a woman, transcends all religions and cultures. It is not just a religious "Christian" concept. It carries with it the historical definition of a union of a man and a woman.

Those who wish to maintain the historically traditional definition are not out to deny anyone of their constitutional rights. When the Constitution was written the traditional definition was the norm and was taken for granted.

Instead of throwing temper tantrums in public and calling those of us who voted for Proposition 8 nasty names, may I suggest that those who oppose Proposition 8 use their creative energy to originate new terms or strengthen terms already in existence to give their unions legitimacy. Robin G. Mitchell Calabasas