Marriage still a secular institution
David Smith's July 29 letter misses several points. First, if you're for families, why are you trying to define for everyone else what a family should be? What works for one may not necessarily work for others, or fall within someone else's religious beliefs.
Contact information ( * required )
And is his political agenda any better or worse than the (nonexistent) "gay agenda" he and other anti-marriage equality folk keep bringing up? I've yet to find a "gay agenda headquarters" though there are plenty of organizations that do believe in, and work for the equality for everyone that the Constitution promises.
Marriage is still a secular institution, regardless of what the religious folk tell you. The couple gets their marriage license from the state (county clerk, city/municipal clerk, etc. in some locales) and not a church, and the officiant, regardless of their religious background, act as a representative of the state. Most if not all officiants end their ceremonies with "And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of (fill in the blank)" and then any other closing they wish.
To relegate people to second-class status because of your beliefs, is to say that your views are better than others, and yours and yours alone should be written into law. Really? It's the same Constitution you're trying to change that gives you the right to say so in the first place, but allow the rest of us the right to believe the way we wish. Therein lies the freedom you'd take away from others.
Howard R. Katz