I just wanted to thank the many posters on this site for prodding me to think about certain issues.  The time I have spent on this site has forced me to organize my thoughts and figure out what is logic and what is emotion regarding several issues rather than leaving it all in a jumble in my mind.  Thank you for making me think!

Because of this, when I recently read an opinion piece in the local paper that didn't make sense to me I wrote back.  They published my letter to the editor today.  This is a little something, but I am quite pleased to once again be stirring up some trouble even if it is on a very low level (and starting to step out of the atheist closet) .  So, thank you.

(Here is the original opinion piece: )

Government should have no say over who marries whom — it's a religious issue

An Ashland church's decision to conduct several gay and lesbian weddings has reignited the debate locally over same-sex marriage. For many, it's a debate that springs from deeply held religious convictions regarding marriage and how it should be defined.
 

In our view, that debate belongs not in the public square, but exactly where those wedding ceremonies took place — in church.
 

Government sanctions marriage by conferring legal rights and responsibilities on married people. But government does not and cannot pass judgment on the religious nature of those unions.
 

From the government's perspective, a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, binding on both parties. It protects the two individuals by ensuring, among other things, that they can bequeath to and inherit property from each other, make life-and-death medical decisions for their partner and visit their loved one in a hospital. Marriage also protects children by obligating their parents to provide and care for them.
 

Religious marriages, on the other hand, confer something more — the blessing of God and the recognition of a spiritual union by the religious community to which the partners belong. Government cannot do that, nor can it compel churches to marry anyone.
 

That is as it should be, and that is why the issue of same-sex marriage ought to be left up to churches and other religious entities. Government's role should be limited to granting civil unions — to any couple that wants one. Everyone gets treated fairly, no one is left out, and no one's union is any more or less valuable than anyone else's.
 

Want to get married? Fine — find a church or other religious organization that will agree to marry you.
 

Want the legal protections that go along with it? The government will certify a civil union between you and your partner of the opposite sex or of the same sex.
 

Some churches will perform same-sex weddings, some will not. Some churches will marry a man and a woman of different faiths, some will not.
 

The point is, churches have the absolute right to make those distinctions. Government should not.
 

If the county clerk — who is legally authorized to perform weddings — refused to marry a Jewish man and a Catholic woman, the couple and the public would be outraged. But the local parish priest or rabbi could refuse to bless that union and no one would bat an eye.
 

Somehow, it is acceptable that government passes judgment on same-sex unions but not on interfaith, heterosexual ones. That's because our civil laws and our religious convictions — our government and our churches — have become improperly intertwined when it comes to marriage.
 

It's time to get government out of the marriage business.
 

Here was my response (printed in today's paper):
 

Editorial's conclusions confusing

I would agree with the facts you have outlined in Friday's opinion piece regarding the discriminatory prohibition of gay marriage by religious organizations, however your conclusions are a bit confusing.
 

Yes, marriage is a civil contract. Therefore, it is a matter in which the state is involved, not any religious organization. If a religious organization wishes to designate certain unions as conforming to their mythology, that's fine. Perhaps they would like to use the name "religious marriages"?
 

That's just a suggestion, of course. The actual term in use should be left up to each religious group.
 

However, a religiously based marriage should remain separate from the civil institution that our society has found to be beneficial and codified into our secular body of law. There is no reason for the rest of us to redefine marriage as civil union in order to appease believers of ancient mythology. It would seem more rational to expect them to operate outside of secular law than to redefine that law to suit their, often discriminatory, purposes. — (my real name and town)