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.
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a conservative
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win solution...
- Letter: Wrong tax approach
- In our opinion: Fabricated Rolling Stone...
- In our opinion: Disrupted by email and the...
- Letter: Changing environment
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp...
- Letter: Costly benefits
- Ralph Hancock: Religious freedom and... 75
- Letter: Wrong wage approach 47
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Kathleen Parker: Hillary Clinton's... 40
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 37
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 33
- Letter: Intimate caucus system 27