Las Vegas Sun

April 20, 2014

Currently: 89° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Marriage has a specific definition

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Regarding the federal Defense of Marriage Act:

Before marriage can be intelligently discussed, wouldn’t it be a good idea to define it? What is marriage?

Traditionally, it has been a sacred union between one man and one woman. It is the biblical basis of the family structure, in which children are conceived, loved, nourished and raised to adulthood.

Many people in our community want to change that tradition, but change it to what? So one man can marry one man, or can one man marry many men? Can a man take a child bride as happens in many countries? Can a woman?

Who dare says no? Don’t they have equal rights to be happy? Why have any laws at all and instead just let everyone do whatever they want?

Chaos, you say? Well, duh.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 17 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Marriage, whether in a place of worship or at the local marriage license office is not the relevant issue here. The real issue is benefits to the married couple provided by state and Federal government. Taxes, inheritance, disposal of personal property after death, among many other issues, are addressed by state and Federal law, not by taking vows in a place of worship. Many people have no interest in biblical interpretations of what marriage should or shouldn't be. Since half of all marriages end in divorce, being married in a place of worship has lost whatever true meaning it ever had. Also, marriage without the goal of having children is just as valid as marriage with the intent to procreate. Let's take religion out of the issue. People have the right to marry the person they love and achieve the rights and benefits that accrue to them, without regard to religious doctrine. DOMA is unconstitutional, and will be overturned, as it should be.

  2. Marriage is an agreement or a contract, if you will, between two consenting adults. The concept that these agreements can only be defined by the two millenial old writings of a Middle Eastern tribe and subsequent traditions cannot satisfy all of us.

    Those that hold to those traditions are not threatened by those that don't. The biggest threat to traditional marriage is divorce, usually caused by unwillingness or inability to keep the initial agreements made.

  3. The letter writer and others opposed to gay marriage can't use the Bible alone as a defense. They need the law on their side too. The law is crystal clear. Gays have the right to marry in our country and once the states approve it [gay marriage], they will. Just as they have already.

    Carmine D

  4. I'd caution against using the Bible as a benchmark for marriage as the various texts seem replete with multiple wives, concubines, sisters and brothers, lying with slaves, etc. The New Testament does seem to clean things up a bit but marriage still appears to have been used in many cases as a contractual mechanism to establish or maintain royal or commercial lineage, diplomatic relations or property rights. Children were often considered mere property to be bartered in the establishment of those rights. The "traditional" marriage folks would have us believe in the Hallmark card version of marriage, Dad, Mom, 2.1 offspring, a golden retriever named Max and a cat named Mittens. That certainly works for some people and more power to them if they succeed. DOMA, however, isn't about the "sacredness" of your union, it's about torts and contracts and the rights and responsibilities accruing therefrom." Render unto to Caesar...."

  5. Anyone who claims that biblical marriage is the ideal clearly knows nothing about marriage or the bible.

  6. "Chaos, you say? Well, duh."

    Blough -- FREEDOM, you say? Well, duh!

    "The real issue is benefits to the married couple provided by state and Federal government."

    ressince73 -- excellent post!

    "Those that hold to those traditions are not threatened by those that don't."

    pisces -- actually those beating that tradition drum mostly just can't get over losing control over others' lives. To that ilk "equality" is relevant only so long as the rest of us subscribe to their dogma.

    "DOMA, however, isn't about the "sacredness" of your union, it's about torts and contracts and the rights and responsibilities accruing therefrom." Render unto to Caesar...."

    wharfrat -- another excellent post. Government is the problem, not others' morality.

    "Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]" -- Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 1

  7. I am totally disgusted with the direction that America is heading. Activist progressives and seculars are now in control of the social agenda. Any contract rights that need to exist in a gay relationship can be achieved by contracting in a civil arrangement. Marriage should and will always be a union between a man and a woman. The letter writer is both sane and correct. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. Whether being gay is the result of choice or a genetic predisposition, it is not a mainstream event that deserves all the loud attention that it receives. How will progressives ever align their support for Islamists with the act of gay relationships. What a laughable and hypocritical state they are in.They should get a life and move on to something more important.

  8. "Hopefully the Supreme court will leave Civil union and Marriage up to the states. This is not the Federal governments business."

    It is the federal government's business when the Constitution guarantees equality under the law. DOMA is discriminatory and violates that constitutional protection, just as discrimination against mixed-race couples violated that constitutional protection.

    "Marriage licenses are granted by States not the Feds"

    That is correct, but you willfully ignore a simple truth:

    Marriages in New York are not treated the same, federally, as marriages from Arizona. Same-sex couples who are legally wed in New York are barred from receiving the same treatment under federal law due to DOMA.

    Same-sex spouses of our military men and women are barred from some on-base privileges, as well as medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits. This is due to the discriminatory nature of DOMA.

    Those who claim to follow the Constitution should clearly rebuke the violation of equal protection found in DOMA.

  9. Letter writer states as fact that traditional marriage has been a sacred union between one man and one woman.

    Perhaps he has never actually read the Bible?

  10. Legalizing same sex marriage will undoubtedly lead to efforts to legalize plural marriages. Both are the same in theory. Permitting one allows the other on the principle of equal rights under the law.

    Carmine D

  11. "I am totally disgusted with the direction that America is heading. Activist progressives and seculars are now in control of the social agenda."

    Houstonjac -- as opposed to the Dominionists, it's a good start!

    "I am totally disgusted with the direction that America is heading. Activist progressives and seculars are now in control of the social agenda."

    ksand -- excellent post

    "[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." -- Thomas Jefferson, to James Sullivan, 1797

  12. Skip Blough wrote, "It is the biblical basis of the family structure, in which children are conceived, loved, nourished and raised to adulthood."

    The bible also has poligamy guided by the Lord, incest such as Lot and his daughters, Jacob took a lover to produce a child because his wife was barren, Solomon had wives and concubines. There are several bible passages and stories that negate one man one woman marriages, using it to argue a point is foolish because of the contradictions.

  13. Note that the biblical references and situations quoted above by the progressive or secular people are all taken from the Old Testament--before the advent of Christ and the Christian faith. There were many perverted sexual behaviors described in the Old Testament. It is interesting that these behaviors are cited in support of gay relationships and marriage by the secular progressives who posted above. There are of course no such references from the New Testament which is the principal foundation for Christianity. Nonetheless, the Bible cannot be the preeminent reason in this secularized disfunctional society for the prevention of gay marriage. A more weighty, non religious basis must be given and that is that marriage between one man and one woman is the union that is best evidenced by nature's clear and obvious physical and psychic adaptations. Gay activists and progressives who disagree are entitled to their opinions but centuries of contrary societal practices and beliefs overwhelms astoundingly the concept of gay marriage.

  14. "A more weighty, non religious basis must be given and that is that marriage between one man and one woman is the union that is best evidenced by nature's clear and obvious physical and psychic adaptations."

    Houstonjac -- exactly what part of "All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights" -- do you not understand?

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -- George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (1945)

  15. Killer B
    "All girls are endowed by their Creator to be Boy Scouts?" Is that what you mean? !What part of common sense don't you understand?

  16. "!What part of common sense don't you understand?"

    Houstonjac -- definitely not your brand, and glad of it.

    "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -- Arthur C. Clarke, 1999, from "God, Science, and Delusion: A Chat With Arthur C. Clarke" in Free Inquiry magazine

  17. Killer B---You end your comments with quotes by others but your last one does not logically follow from the preceding comments I made. Religion was not the basis for my argument against the case for gay marriage. I still don't think that you have demonstrated any common sense in your responses. Just saying...