I offer these thoughts about marriage and civil unions — without the dreaded “religion factor” brought into the conversation.

As is known, a union of a male and a male or female and another female can never result in the two partners having a child of their own. A third party is necessary.

In a marriage of a male and a female, the two are usually quite able to produce many children of their own, on their own. No third party needed.

For the protection offered by the legal binding union of two people, a civil union would provide male/male and female/female unions the protection of law needed when two folks are going to make it through life together. However, one needs a wife and a husband for a marriage to be a marriage and not just a union.

So why all the objection to a civil union? It would give the same-sex folks protection under the law and in no way be confused with a marriage between a male and female.

Joel Denison, Strong

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.