When the Kernel arrived in my e-mail inbox on Tuesday, a column in favor of marriage over cohabitation caught my eye. I immediately knew who the author would be, as this is just yet another column promoting traditional gender roles and sexism that Natalie Glover has written.

I agree with Glover that marriage is “important and good,” but I’m not naive enough — or patronizing enough — to believe that it is the right choice for each and every relationship. Need I remind you that there are many couples in this country who are not legally allowed to get married? Also, with divorce rates approaching 50 percent, the argument that not all relationships should end in marriage becomes even stronger. Let’s face it: It’s much easier to get a divorce than get out of a joint lease or mortgage.

It’s often argued that cohabitation leads to these higher divorce rates, because people don’t take their marriage vows as seriously if they cohabitated first. I would argue that individuals progressive enough to cohabitate before marriage are also less likely to stay in abusive, unfulfilling or otherwise unhealthy relationships than those with the backward, overly religious values Glover conveys each week.

Just because we haven’t signed a piece of paper and paid $20,000 for a wedding doesn’t mean my partner and I aren’t committed to each other. Last time I checked, women could vote, and individuals have the right to love, sleep and live with whomever they choose. If marriage and only marriage is right for Glover, more power to her. But don’t imply that one relationship is better, healthier or more fulfilling than any other — just because you quoted a few Bible verses.

Tara Bonistall

Social work alumna

Justifications for abortion don’t make sense

In regard to the whole abortion issue, I just want to point out a couple of things. First of all, if a doctor is treating a pregnant woman, and if his treatment accidentally injures or kills the unborn child, then the woman can turn around and sue him, and he can even face jail time.

Likewise, if someone gets in a car accident and kills a pregnant woman, that person is charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter. An unborn child can also be an inheritor to an estate. There are many other instances like this, where the law treats the unborn as already possessing life and rights that are protected under the law.

I personally know an obstetrician-gynecologist who has never felt it necessary to perform an abortion for “medical” reasons. Likewise, the presidential candidate Ron Paul, who is also an obstetrician-gynecologist and has delivered over 4,000 babies, says he has never even heard of a case in which an abortion was necessary to save the life of the woman.

If the law already says that the unborn have life, why should exceptions be made if the woman simply chooses to not want the child? Pregnancy is always a risk when having sexual relations, and I think it’s time people started taking responsibility for their actions. If you get pregnant because you are having sex, it’s not the child’s fault, and you don’t know what the potential is for that child’s future. Is it anyone’s right to deny someone his or her potential?

Furthermore, there are innumerable families that would love to adopt a child. We often hear about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and we complain when the government passes laws that encroach on our right to those things. And yet people demand laws that actually deny these three basic tenants of our constitution — whether in so-called “antiterrorism” laws, demand for more central economic planning, or, in this case, the right to terminate life before it even has a chance to experience life outside the womb.

Donald Keefe

Painting junior