Cook County News Herald

Religious definition of marriage violates separation of church and state




The recent letters of Rae Piepho and Linda McIntire concerning marriage are exactly why I will vote no to the proposed marriage amendment on Election Day. This proposed amendment should have nothing to do with religion.

If religious folks want to keep their sacred definition of marriage, then let them keep it within their respective religions. Besides, the Bible is full of questionable marriages, many consisting of multiple wives, etc.

It also touches on some interesting relationships between those of the same sex, such as that of David and Jonathan. As far as I am concerned the Bible could have said “Adam and Earl” or “Agnes and Eve” rather than “Adam and Eve.” All of that is neither here nor there.

While the gods (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Mormon, etc.) may have created marriage and certain rights that accompany it, the rights these individuals are seeking are not those given by god, but those determined by men and the law of the land. Incorporating the religious definition of marriage into the law of men seems to test, if not violate, the separation of church and state.

In the beautiful paintings Linda referred to in her letter, the artist masterfully captured a brief moment in time. In reality, time does not stand still and I am sure the artist was not attempting to suggest it does. Time changes and things evolve, hopefully for the better.

Every generation has its own phobias to deal with. Throughout our history we have very gradually dealt with some of these “bigotry demons.” Slavery, polygamy, suffrage, civil rights, interracial marriages and equal rights have all been among them. It is time for this generation to step up and deal with the discrimination against homosexuals and vote no on this amendment.

Jim Mohr
Hovland



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.