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
- What one word best describes Barack Obama?
- Why LDS Church's anti-discrimination stance...
- In our opinion: Fix, don't repeal, Affordable...
- What The New York Times gets wrong about...
- Michael Gerson: America has enough problems...
- W. Bradford Wilcox: Yes, women and children...
- Letter: Antelope Island prison
- Jay Evensen: In fight over school funding,...
- What The New York Times gets wrong... 77
- In our opinion: Fix, don't repeal,... 70
- Michael and Jenet Erickson: Utah... 50
- In our opinion: It's time to end the... 42
- Mike Lee: Tax reform shouldn't penalize... 38
- In our opinion: Fairness for all in... 37
- Jay Evensen: Will Obama visit Utah? Do... 37
- In our opinion: It's time for Utah to... 27