Voting no on Question 1 would benefit our society for future generations.

As parents, men and women each have a unique role in the rearing of children. One is not better or more necessary than the other.

Many studies validate what most people know intuitively: a man and woman bound in a committed, loving relationship create the ideal environment for raising children.

This does not mean that children raised by a single parent, grandparents or other family relationships cannot be successful.

However, they are at greater risk of involvement in drugs, dropping out of school, crime and many other risky behaviors.

Through the promotion of heterosexual marriage, our society will reduce the number of children that will be a burden or drain on society.

When we are setting public policy, we must consider what is best for our society as a whole and not what is best for the individual. Our society as a whole benefits when children are raised by their married biological parents. Therefore, we must promote heterosexual marriage as the ideal for our society.

Public policies rarely treat all behaviors equally. Law enforcement officers are allowed to exceed the speed limit in certain circumstances.

Our public policy allows law enforcement officers to exceed the speed limit because of the greater good that it provides.

If we were to change the definition of “law enforcement officer” to include other groups of people who would like to drive faster than the speed limit, the speed limit laws which currently benefit our society would become meaningless.

Likewise, the public purpose of marriage becomes meaningless if we redefine it to include relationships that do not provide the ideal setting for children.

Please consider what is best for future generations and vote no on Question 1.

Roger Crouse

Winslow