There has been much discussion on the topic of "same-sex" marriage over the past few years and this Election Day in November there will be more states who will go to the polls to decide whether to give the traditional definition of marriage the protection it deserves.

How has it come to our country deciding on the definition of marriage? It has only been a handful of judges from a handful of states who have redefined what we have all been happy to live with for the last thousand years. Now because of a few fighting the system, we have to change it?

Activist judges in several states have taken it upon themselves to redefine - or demand that democratically elected legislators redefine – the historical and commonly understood meaning of marriage.

In retrospect, these bills that are passed through other states will have a direct affect on the people of Alabama. Because of a bill that is to be signed this week in Massachusetts, these "married" couples who move into Alabama will expect us to uphold their union as lawful and this might be more difficult than originally thought. Everything that was considered a normal lifestyle in our country will have to be up for discussion and more laws made because of the change. How would they proceed with divorce and children custody? What about life insurance claims? It’s all very confusing. The institution of marriage has been here for thousands of years. So why is it that we have to redefine this very basic unit of the family? What about other married situations?

William T. Garner, a retired superior court judge, brings up a good point we should all think about: If we allow same-sex marriage, who is to say that we shouldn’t allow polygamous marriage? Why is one "okay" and the other isn’t? Judge Garner says: "In effectively changing the traditional definition of marriage, the State Supreme Court said that an individual must be allowed to establish a marriage with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life. If the person chosen is already married to another and all parties agree to the arrangement, in the light of the court’s language, how can the state refuse to recognize the three-party marriage, or indeed place any limit on the number of marriage partners?" They allowed same-partners, why not three-party marriages?

These judges are fooling with something that is so deeply seeded in our culture that it would be disastrous to change it. It would cause the upheaval of something so basic in our lives; we would not recover from it. The family would never be the same again. We should carefully consider what the outcome of these new laws would be and not be in such a hurry to appease a comparatively small group of citizens. Let’s do what is right for the good of the family and the institution of marriage.

Loxley resident Valerie J. Steimle is the author of two books, “Home Is Where The Heart Is, A look at strengthening the American Family,” and her latest book, “Home Is Where The Learning Is” (www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403379637). Contact her at valeriesteimle@yahoo.com or visit her website at www.stengthenyourhome.com.