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
- Why one Mormon man left Hollywood to be a...
- My view: Non-discrimination laws have a problem
- President should not act without...
- In our opinion: No more 'Government Motors'
- Richard Davis: Mandela's greatest achievement...
- Letter: American billionaires
- Matthew Sanders: Nelson Mandela's goodness...
- Doug Robinson: We are in the midst of an era...
- In our opinion: Don't raise the minimum... 65
- My view: Fix Obamacare, don't replace it 61
- Robert Bennett: Create wealth before... 43
- Andrew Morriss: No, Congress should not... 39
- Can Mandela's legacy revive the GOP? 30
- In our opinion: No more 'Government... 29
- President should not act without... 26
- My view: Non-discrimination laws have a... 25