I am told that I am standing in the way of a loving couple's happiness, "minimizing" them, and lacking compassion if I vote "yes" on Question 1 (Pamella Beliveau, column, Oct. 18). I beg to differ.

When did it become acceptable to encourage others to pursue and achieve happiness at any cost, no matter who or what else is affected? That is false compassion.

Just because two people have feelings of love for each other does not mean the state should raise their union to the level of marriage. In fact, feelings of love are a far cry from true love, which is self-sacrificial, self-giving, and not about "me" at all.

Just because a married woman feels she loves another who is not her husband does not mean the public should "compassionately" look the other way when she commits adultery and say, "Well, who am I to stand in the way of her happiness?"

Same-sex partners can never bring forth children in a self-giving, intimate union without the involvement of a third party, and they cannot complement each other in the way nature ordained for their mutual benefit and the good of the children they raise.

The traditional nuclear family has existed for millennia, and although people's choices and circumstances often break these families apart, the ideal does not become any less valuable or worth striving for.

Let's not have the state put a stamp of approval on a union that is far from ideal.

Catherine Malo, Lewiston