This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2013, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Blaine Nay writes a confusing and self-contradictory letter ("Government weddings," Forum, July 2) about government involvement in marriage, stating it is a "religious and family affair" where government uses marriage to "unjustly give benefits" to one class (married) over another (unmarried).
He believes we need to allow religion to control marriage and government to perform civil marriages for those who don't want a church wedding (how does that get government out of marriage?) and enforce the marital contract (doesn't contract law equal government?) when churches can't.
If governments get out of marriage, there's no involvement period. There would be no "married, filing jointly," no "Social Security spousal benefits," no "consent for treatment in hospital cases," no right of inheritance, no court dissolution of a marriage, simply all people treated equally with zero regard for marital status or sexual orientation.
He ends with the silly tirade against forcing churches to perform homosexual marriages, child marriages, plural marriages (failing to realize some churches already perform child marriages and plural marriages) and marriages with animals. Homosexuals have the same rights under the law as everybody else. And, until you find animals capable of providing "informed consent," get real.