Your front-page interview with Ryan Anderson (May 8) was excellent. Ryan made some significant points about the reasons to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman. Civil union laws have pretty much covered all the needs any homosexual couples should need to correspond with the same rights afforded heterosexual married couples.
Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the concept of marriage mentioned. However, religious freedom is supported by the First Amendment. Marriage is not a right of everyone and should be regulated by the states (not the federal judiciary). Those states, which have chosen through the democratic process that marriage is the sole purview of man and woman, should have their sovereignty upheld. There is no discrimination of rights when homosexuals have civil unions. As Mr. Anderson so aptly stated, “live and let live,” but don’t degrade the long-held esteem of the marriage covenant.
- 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