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
- In our opinion: Brexit and the U.K.'s new...
- In our opinion: US v. Texas and immigration...
- On Second Thought: Departugal, Italeave and...
- In our opinion: California considering bold...
- John Florez: If elephants can dance so can...
- Letter: Come together
- Letter: Reducing teacher load
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired...
- Letter: Shooter's motives 36
- Letter: Carbon emissions fee 30
- In our opinion: California considering... 29
- In our opinion: US v. Texas and... 22
- My view: Taxpayers should call foul on... 19
- In our opinion: Brexit and the U.K.'s... 18
- Charles Krauthammer: Hillaryism: Tired... 17
- Letter: Panhandlers in Sandy 17