Letter: Marriage definitions and witch hunts

As a minister, I am glad for the reassurance provided by deputy Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont that "no persons or organisation should be forced to be involved in or approve of same-sex marriages" (your report, 4 August).

However, the issue is not that simple. Once the state redefines marriage then, as a "provider of public services", there is every possibility that I will be sued, charged and condemned for being "discriminatory" when I refuse to sanction or recognise same-sex partnership as marriage. Therefore John Mason's motion makes perfect sense and will make explicit what Johann Lamont and Ross Chmiel (Letters, 5 August) say is already implicit.

In the current atmosphere of hysteria against anyone who dares to uphold the traditional view of marriage you will forgive me for not trusting the word of politicians.

Can I also make a plea that the government's "consultation" actually be that, and not an unthinking witch hunt against anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing irrational dogmas of the establishment.

An example of this is Stephen Moreton's letter (5 August) which declares that "marriage is a public contract between two people who love one another". What does this actually mean? Does it mean that a brother can marry his sister? Or a father his daughter? Should a 60-year-old be allowed to marry a 12-year-old? What about people who don't love one another? Should there be a love test before a marriage is sanctioned? And why stick at two people? Why should three or 30 people who "love one another" not be allowed to marry?

Can we please have a proper debate on these issues without the Disneyfied simplistic truisms and without threatening any politician who dares to express a different point of view with a media campaign of vilification and abuse?

David A Robertson

Solas Centre for Public Christianity

St Peter's Free Church

St Peter St

Dundee

Richard Lucas (Letters, 4 August) is wrong to assert that marriage was "instituted by God as the foundation for a society of stable families".

Marriage was invented as a way to legitimise the sale of a woman into another family or tribe. And not 50 years ago, in the United States, it was illegal for a mixed-race couple to marry.

Thankfully, the definition of marriage has changed over time, and no doubt it will again.

Regarding the Scottish Youth Parliament, I for one am proud to be part of a country whose young people are not the apathetic layabouts they are so often portrayed as. Luckily, their opinions represent the future; Richard Lucas's (Letters, 4 August) belong firmly in the past.

Graeme Jackson

Baberton Mains Hill

Edinburgh