To the Editor:I was dismayed to read in former council member Lonnie Rich’s Feb. 27 Commentary piece that after voting to add sexual orientation to Alexandria’s human rights ordinance, then councilman Mike Jackson was thereafter refused communion. The Catholic Church has long held that all persons deserve to be treated with dignity. Such an addition to an ordinance is in line with Catholic teaching and approving and/or endorsing it should in no way jeopardize access to communion. I hope that this error was corrected and councilman Jackson was able to receive again.As for the message in Mr. Rich’s piece, it too dismays me. I know Mr. Rich has a long history with Alexandria and can appreciate his service for three terms on City Council and the recent announcement of his being honored (along with his wife a daughter) at this year’s Senior Services Gala. It seems inevitable that civil marriage will no longer be prohibited for same sex couples, in a true marriage, you give yourself totally to the other. That is why marriage with more than two people and why sex outside of marriage is wrong. In both cases, it is not a total giving of yourself to the other. In the former you would have to split yourself between at least two people, in the latter, there is no commitment to the giving. Part of marriage is sex. Sex has two purposes — it strengthens the permanent bond of matrimony between the people involved in it and it allows for the possibility of procreation.Moreover these two purposes cannot be separated, at least not without causing harm, most notably in the form of divorce (which harms any children in addition to the spouses), the strain of unintended single parent families, and abortion. That is why sex without the possibility of procreation is wrong — it says the persons involved in it are less than persons because their fertility is not accepted (or is misused) or that the actions taken are purely for pleasure. It would seem out of order to have a married man and woman who only wanted children from their sex without the bonding. The same applies to a couple that only wants the bonding but not the children. I will say that for the past 50 or more years, society has gotten civil marriage wrong most of the time, so I cannot blame same sex couples for feeling they can do no worse, but it will make it worse by reinforcing the incorrect message that the two inseparable purposes of sex can be separated.I know there are many who will want to raise counter arguments, but my space is limited. For those interested, search the internet for “What is Marriage” to read an excellent article by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson.I am not unsympathetic to what many same sex couples claim to want. They should be able to make arrangements for the person they want to visit them in the hospital, make medical decisions, receive inheritances or survivor benefits tax free, etc. Marriage is not the right vehicle for that. Finding a different vehicle is not discrimination. We seem to think that if we give some group of people a privilege that necessarily means we discriminate against others. That is not so. Do we call it discrimination against the rich when the poor receive housing, food, or medical assistance? No. Should I feel discriminated against because veterans are eligible for things I am not? No. Why should we feel that giving people who can enter a true marriage some benefits by virtue of a marriage license is discrimination when those same benefits (and possibly more) can be granted another way, even if that other way is not as easy as getting a marriage license?There is more to say, but I will end for now by asking that if any of the points I have mentioned make sense, then do more research, contemplate, discuss, etc. Marriage, true marriage, is hard. Why make it harder by confusing it with something that cannot be marriage?

Jeremy Greiner

Alexandria