From: Jerome R. Kulas
I wholeheartedly disagree with the opinions voiced by Kevin Lindsey and the human rights commission. He states “the issue is the possibility of entangling religion and government and whether we want to go down the path of entangling the two.”
They don’t understand that the proposed amendment has nothing to do whatsoever with entangling religion and government. It only seeks to establish the fact that “marriage” is a contract between a man and a woman. They are trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” to include two members of the same sex. It is not trying to deny anyone’s rights or privileges but simply to supply such people with the legal means to gain some of the privileges normally provided to a couple who are “married”. You can call it a civil union or any other name that you choose but you can’t call it a “marriage”.
The Catholic church has been the largest, loudest, advocate of this amendment, not to try to gain members, but to prevent changing the meaning of the word “marriage”. I don’t understand how so many people including a recent Lutheran minister can misunderstand the meaning of the word marriage. It’s a meaning that has gone on for thousands of years. If you want something similar call it by another name but don’t call it marriage. It’s just like calling a Ford a Chevy.