Reply to Kane O'Donnell (Letters, June 23). My letter made a suggestion that, if implemented, would retain clarity of meaning of the word "marriage".

It now has only one meaning and you want to give it three.

You say "dictionaries are open to interpretation". Yes but, ideally, they should not be.

Widen your view, Kane. They are also open to additions and deletions.

For the sake of clarity, my suggestion was to add two new words describing the unions between same-sex couples: one for males, the other for females.

My letter was not an exercise in "semantics", but an attempt to address an issue.

In reply to Dennis Pennefather (Letters, June 23), he writes: "A society will decide its issues, including the meanings of words and their interpretation".

I fully agree with you on that one, Dennis, but have you overlooked the fact that I am a member of the society you and I live in and as such I have a right to voice my views?

Nothing in my letter indicated that I am against " the process of change" you talk about. I merely want my chance to help shape those changes.

J DEKKER

Hamilton

Editor's note: No more correspondence on gay marriage thanks. Everyone has had a good say on this issue.

- © Fairfax NZ News