To claim, as Burwell did in Wednesday's column, that marriage is defined and given meaning by a couple's ability to have (heterosexual) sex - and subsequent offspring - is absurd.
By his logic, we shouldn't recognize marriages between physically disabled, impotent or infertile men and women or condone their "deficient sexual expressions of love." We also should immediately revoke the marriage licenses of any couple that engages in intentionally contraceptive sex- a sentiment I think they might resent.
Although many couples wed with the possibility of children in mind, I expect the primary motivation is simply romantic desire to declare enduring love and commitment in a binding ceremony - or at least as binding as the current heterosexual divorce rate indicates.
But perhaps the mindset that inspired Burwell's article about "fitting together puzzle pieces" would also believe that the love a homosexual couple shares is somehow "mismatched."
Sex makes marriage vows valid, Burwell? Sex makes marriage vows nice but valuing them makes them valid. And people seldom value something more than when they've fought for it.
The article ignores the civil and romantic reasons to be wed and insults those who through choice or circumstance don't have children.
A homosexual union may be childless, but regardless, they can enjoy as full a degree of marital love as any two people can expect.
I encourage the entire campus - and especially the UF Catholic Student Fellowship - to reject the amendment and stand for humanity, encouraging love wherever it is found.
