Government should have not role in marriage debate

2013-07-14T00:00:00Z Government should have not role in marriage debate
July 14, 2013 12:00 am

In light of the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage and the recent Supreme Court ruling, I would like to speak for the third side of the issue, which is widely ignored.

Why should the government recognize marriage at all? Why not keep marriage a religious institution and let churches set their own rules on it? If the government must recognize partnerships for government benefit purposes (and I would argue they don't), we could just change the legal term for marriage to something like "civil union."

The religious couples could then go to the church of their choice to be "married." The purpose of government is to protect the public from violence and fraud, not to legislate traditions, values or culture.

- Rudolph Mamula, Hammond

Copyright 2014 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Follow The Times

Latest Local Offers

Featured Businesses

Submit a Letter to Editor

We welcome letters from readers on any issue of public interest, and make every effort to publish as many as we can and in a timely manner. The Times will publish only one letter a month from a writer, and be sure to include your name, address and a telephone number for verification. Letters should be 150 words or less. They will be edited.

Letters may be submitted:
  • Via our submission form.
  • Via e-mail.
  • Via fax: (219) 933-3249 or (219) 465-7298
  • Via mail or by hand to our offices:
    • 601 45th Ave., Munster, IN 46321
    • 2080 N. Main St., Crown Point, IN 46307
    • 1111 Glendale Blvd., Valparaiso, IN 46383
    • 3410 Delta Dr., Portage, IN 46368
    • Please mark envelopes with "Attn: Letters"


Email Editorial Page Editor Doug Ross or call (219) 548-4360 or (219) 933-3357



Should struggling small school districts merge with their neighbors?

View Results