Not all people of similar faiths agree on issue

Published 9:00 pm Friday, April 16, 2004

Douglas Theer writes in his April 5 letter, “It’s a civil union, not marriage,” that there is an appropriate separation in the definition of marriage for “religious” purposes and for secular or “civil” purposes. I couldn’t agree more and look forward to the day when the marriages of all people regardless of race, gender or religion are treated as equal by our government.

However, it is there that my agreement with Mr. Theer ends. As a woman whose faith is deeply rooted in the Judeo Christian faith, I disagree with Mr. Theer’s religious definition of marriage. I have painstakingly studied and researched both the Old and New Testaments and find quite a different interpretation of God’s definition of marriage. I find that God’s design for marriage is the provision of deep and abiding partnership. I find that when taken in both the cultural and contextual content of the whole book of scripture, God’s instructions for marriage are in regard to how partners treat each other rather than of who is in the partnership.

I’m sure that Mr. Theer will disagree with me. That is his right as it is mine to disagree with him. But he shouldn’t lump me into his definition of the Judeo Christian observation of marriage. His viewpoint is not unanimous among those whose faith is based in that tradition, and shows once again the brilliance our forefathers demonstrated in separating matters of church and state.

Woodinville