Regarding Ruth Ann Dailey's column "Civil Unions for All Best Answer to Thorny Problem" (March 11): She seems to posit that allowing marriage equality for everyone would threaten religious freedom. Huh?
She believes in civil unions only for same-sex couples, allowing legal recognition but preserving "our constitutional right to different opinions on the religious meaning of marriage."
She continues, "For millennia, long before 'the state' existed, marriage belonged to the sacred realm" (read: straight, godly people). But, according to Yale religious scholar John Boswell in his book "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe," there is documented evidence of same-sex unions being performed in churches as early as the sixth to 16th centuries.
Ms. Dailey blames the current acceptance of gay marriage on President Barack Obama, of course, and a good PR campaign, giving the American people little credit for their own minds. Just maybe, folks are beginning to understand that a person's love and commitment to another person is a good thing, regardless of gender.
"Religious freedom," as she narrowly defines it, is hardly under attack; it's quite the opposite. She seems to believe that some of us are not worthy of God's blessing and only state recognition is appropriate. Well, on having legal sanction we agree.
She also fears churches would be forced to perform these marriages -- I hardly think so. But I believe that any church that would exclude some people from a ceremony to celebrate love based on ignorance and bigotry isn't very godly at all.