Committed couples need lawful benefits

After reading Mr. Louis S. Guagenti letter (“Be on the right side of history,” April 10), I started to think back on a previous letter I had read that tackled the same concern, and I was compelled to write what I thought of the two views expressed by each individual. It was a few weeks ago that I read Mr. Richard Gylling’s Solomon-like, common sense solution to the controversy over marriage vs. civil union for gays (“A Civil Solution to Gay Marriage,” March 29). It struck me then that his common sense and respectful approach should be sent to our Supreme Court justices.

Those of us who practice a religion clearly believe that marriage is a sacrament, or a covenant, between a man and a women as clearly defined in both the Old and New Testaments, or if you will, the Law of God. Therefore, as Mr. Gylling clearly points out, if the government, either state or national, decides to enter into performing the sacrament of marriage, it is establishing a religion, which is prohibited by the Constitution. On the other hand, whether I agree or disagree with two men or two women deciding to commit and join their lives together, I do believe they should receive the same benefits as a couple married according to the universally held religious definition of marriage.

While I do admit I don’t really understand completely how two men or two women are attracted sexually to each other, I do respect and admire many of those couples who have loved, honored and respected each other for so many years. They should not be denied the same benefits the laws allow for heterosexual married couples who have been, and are, joined together according to the sacred holy sacrament of marriage of their religious faiths.

Ed Gleason

Prospect Heights