Happily ever after

Re “A Prop. 8 win-win,” Opinion, June 16

I agree with Douglas Kmiec that the civil and religious aspects of the union of two individuals should be separated. The state could fulfill its regulatory function by issuing civil union licenses to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation; then those couples who so desire could have a marriage within their own religious tradition.

Sandra Wolber

Granada Hills

This article is the first sense I have heard about the whole gay-marriage debacle.

Government should not be administering marriage, which is a religious sacrament; religious organizations should.

So? Change all the government laws from “marriage” to “civil union,” which applies to everyone equally.

Leave marriage to churches, and let each church work out its dogma as it sees fit. End of problem.

John Mattson

San Pedro

::

What exactly is marriage?

Kmiec got right to the heart of the matter: Marriage in this country is a legal arrangement, first and foremost -- as evidenced by the fact that weddings conducted in a courthouse, as opposed to a house of worship, are legal and binding.

For that simple reason, all citizens must have access to this arrangement or our notion of equal rights is a sham. Religious institutions absolutely have the right to determine which people they will marry, but they do not have the right to decide who is married elsewhere.

As someone who has been “civilly” (and legally) united with a person of the opposite sex for almost 29 years, I think Kmiec’s recommendation that we substitute civil union for marriage is the best solution for ending this divisive and often ugly debate.

Laura Scully

Rancho Palos Verdes

::

Kmiec could not be more wrong.

I am an atheist, and when I decide to get married (no matter to whom) by a court official, I want it to be just that -- a marriage.

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court decided that “separate can never be equal.”

When will people realize that?

Kyle Tate

Hacienda Heights

::

Thank goodness for professor Kmiec.

Let’s follow the European model and acknowledge that such benefits as tax breaks and survivor’s rights and benefits flow from the state, which should treat all consenting adults equally, regardless of sexual orientation.

Leaving marriage to those who choose to have their unions blessed by the religious organization of their choice provides the perfect separation of church and state. I hope someone in Sacramento is listening.

Janet K. Schwartzkopf

Palm Springs

::

The problem with Kmiec’s compromise is that the “lack of portability” that civil unions entail will then be thrust on straight couples too.

Take a state, for example, that prohibits recognition of civil unions. If a straight California couple gets a civil union, then moves to that state, are they considered “married”?

We must educate our opponents on the immorality of foisting their personal beliefs on others through force of law. I would prefer not to take marriage away from anyone, even those who would take it away from me.

Johan David Baumeister

Hollywood

The writer is reconciling ministries task force chairperson at Hollywood United Methodist Church.

::

The proposal to replace the term “marriage” with “civil union” in the state code has one flaw: reciprocity.

“Marriage” is a term that is universally understood, and reciprocally recognized, in jurisdictions around the world. It’s unclear if this extends to “civil union.”

However, it would be an interesting situation, with every couple, gay or straight, who marry -- or, I suppose, civilly unionize -- in the state being in a position to test and push recognition.

Randall Gellens

San Diego