Thank you, Scott Garner, for your statement that "religion has no place in the marriage debate" ("Church and state," April 28). I agree with that statement even though I'm a God-fearing, Bible-thumping church-goer. A government marriage is not the same thing as a religion marriage. A government marriage is a civil union that guarantees civil rights.
Therefore, it is also correct to say, "Government has no place in the marriage debate," because a religion marriage is not the same thing as a government marriage. The debate can be ended if all heterosexual and gay couples obtained civil unions whether or not accompanied by marriages in the churches of our choice. Why must we suffer a civil war over an official definition of marriage?
Wallace L. Haynes
West Valley City
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- Capitalism and the common good: Fairness,...
- My view: Utah's Constitution requires state...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act needs...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 54
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 46
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- Join the discussion: Is feminism... 37
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the... 37