Letter to the Editor: 10.12.12

As any human knows, the desire to love and be loved is universal. As any American knows, such love can only be represented by the holy institution of marriage. What modern Americans fail to realize is that marriage, whilst a fully acceptable religious function, is not necessary.

Yes, the government uses marriage as a recognition of union between man and women. Yes, such a recognition is necessary for tax exemptions, census data, etc. But no, a holy union of man and woman is not necessary.

I do not mean this to say America should do without marriage. I fully believe in the sanctity of marriage, as it was defined in a religious text for religious people. But I fully disagree with the use of marriage by the government, as opposed to that which the government claims fair (civil unions).

In my personal opinion, civil unions should replace marriage as the recognized relation between two people.

Rather than the government flat out telling people they can’t be together (who will be together anyways), they can offer a much more manageable solution by using civil unions to recognize both heterosexual and homosexual domiciles.

The people who want marriage can still get married (and no longer have the government’s hands in said marriage) while the people who simply want to be together can have that recognized by the government, giving them the socially recognized construct of a relationship that they yearn for so much.


Letter by Josh Tillson, junior from Sharpe, Ky.