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
- My view: Obama has you cornered with K-12...
- Five principles to help guide public dialogue...
- Letter: Human body
- In our opinion: Trump's statements on Mexican...
- Steve Eaton: Sundance the Talking Dog is gone
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: A more...
- My view: Use of force debate should recognize...
- In our opinion: School libraries need...
- Five principles to help guide public... 98
- In our opinion: Sen. Mike Lee's... 63
- Letter: Human body 39
- In our opinion: Trump's statements on... 19
- Robert J. Samuelson: The trouble with... 15
- Drew Clark: We need to consider... 15
- In our opinion: School libraries need... 15
- Letter: Transportation component 11