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.
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Charles Krauthammer: Battle must be fought...
- Reconnecting with Cuba is a good move —...
- David Blankenhorn: Berlin boasts a wise use...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 61
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 41
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 35
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30