Letters to the Editor

Can’t change the meaning of the word

Imagine this headline and story: “For apple lovers everywhere, the wait is over. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down the DOBA (Defense of Banana Act), apples can now legally be called bananas. No longer will apples be vilified by hateful applephobics, because under the law apples are now called ‘bananas.’ There will still be spiteful people on the other side who want apples to be called ‘apples’ and bananas to be called ‘bananas,’ that mindset will never change.”

Does anyone realize how silly that sounds? A legislature or group of judges could now just as easily rename an elephant a “mouse” or a dog a “cat” or diesel fuel “unleaded gasoline” (imagine the fun that would create at the gas station)! Just because those in authority choose to change the definition of a word doesn’t make it reality. An apple would still be an apple regardless of what anyone chooses to call it. Marriage will always still be one man and one woman regardless of any legislation to the contrary.

Are people who want apples to remain apples and bananas to remain bananas bigots or hateful? Of course not, it’s silly to even suggest that. It’s also silly to say that people who want marriage to be defined as it has always been — as one man and one woman — are homophobic, bigoted or hateful. It’s just that words have meanings, and you can’t legislate away their meaning.

Don Wiens


We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

Read the Oct 21
Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Browse the archives.

Friends to Follow

View All Updates