Writer doesn't understand marriage

John Page's Fence Post letter of June 10 regarding the Defense of Marriage Act contains what I believe are some errors. Two points are relevant.

First, the claim is made that the Defense of Marriage Act's definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman forces individuals to adhere to a particular religious view, namely that of Christianity. This is clearly not the case since many faiths (e.g. Judaism, Islam) would be in agreement with this definition.

Second, the claim is made that marriage is a civil liberty. That designation is so broad that it has limited usefulness. Marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman entered into by the couple before a cleric or a civil authority. The state regulates and licenses marriage because it has a legitimate concern with the welfare of the couple's progeny.

I believe that Mr. Page's errors occur because he sees agreement between religious organizations and secular authorities on the definition of marriage as a form of governmental endorsement of a particular religious view. Mere agreement of two parties on one issue does not imply endorsement. It simply means that on this one issue both parties have come to the same conclusion.

Marvin Johnson

Grayslake