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
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from the...
- My view: Get insurance out of health care
- In our opinion: Legislators need to better...
- My view: The solution to Utah's water problems
- In our opinion: Why it's important to note...
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and assisted...
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be...
- My view: Is the Division of Water Resources...
- Americans are skeptical that government... 58
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be... 53
- My view: Get insurance out of health care 44
- My view: Obama's veto won't save Obamacare 33
- In our opinion: Attempting to... 32
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and... 27
- In our opinion: Concerned voters a good... 23
- Trump and Sanders 22