Letter: Take the state out of the act of marriage

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 | 8:36 a.m.

Is marriage a secular or a sectarian institution? This is the question that needs to be considered and answered when entering into the debate of "gay marriage."

In his letter of June 24, James E. Nickelson suggests that "apologists for gay marriage" should accept "civil union contracts and not push for inclusion with heterosexual marriages." This suggests he considers marriage to be a sectarian institution.

Maintaining marriage as it is today and providing civil union contracts for the homosexual community is simply another "separate but equal" concept. Such a concept has failed in the past and will do so again. However, I believe marriage as a sectarian institution can be saved and still provide equal protection to the homosexual community.

When a heterosexual couple wish to unite their lives, they should be allowed to do so without the interference of the state (secular). This union should be strictly between the couple and their chosen religious (sectarian) order. While such an union would not be protected by any legal obligations, it is more in line with the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

This would allow all religious orders to refuse to marry any couple they deemed unfit to unite and do so within the framework of the Constitution. If religious orders wish legal obligations be included, they could involve the state by requiring a civil union contract.

Homosexual couples wishing to unite are then on equal footing with heterosexuals. They, too, wishing to have legal obligation placed on their union could obtain a civil union contract.

Terry E. Peele, Las Vegas