Marriage is religious, while commitment has legal definition
The term "marriage" belongs in a religious context. It's a contract between two people, sanctioned by God. Civil government has no need to provide definitions or interpretations.
A solution? Eliminate the word "marriage" from Internal Revenue Service regulations. A lasting "committed relationship" would be required to obtain the benefits of what was the marriage deduction.
Many economic benefits would accrue. However, should that benefit not apply to all who stabilize society by commitment and participation together?
A committed relationship includes two people who:
■ Share real property and/or financial resources.
■ Intend to continue their relationship.
■ Provide for the proper upbringing of children, whether natural or adopted.
With substantiated proof of such relationship, they could then become eligible for any benefits that had previously been available only for married couples. Until then, all would be considered individuals.
This is not intended to lessen the importance of marriage from a biblical sense. Marriage came about in the creation of man and woman, not from government. Even in non-Judeo/Christian cultures, marriage exists as a covenant with a supreme being. Government has no need to attempt to redefine marriage.
U.N., Al Gore cabal
How's that Kool-Aid tasting? I see the Herald-Leader ate up the United Nations/NOAA/NASA/Al Gore cabal global-warming mantra — hook, line and sinker.
I challenge readers to evaluate the findings themselves: wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds.
The website basically challenges anyone who can discern 1/100th of a degree in global temperature change. Scientific equipment to measure that variance in temperature is not even within the accuracy tolerances of the measuring instruments. Even NOAA and NASA disagree on a baseline of where to start. Also, to date, the signatures of at least 31,487 scientists agree that global warming is a farce.
If one were to read Global Deception by Joseph A. Klein, they would see the duplicity of the U.N. and would surely see how this deception is affecting U.S. policy and fleecing world taxpayers.
I have a question about Elena Carlena's column, "Celebrate nation's commitment to allow freedom from religion." I really liked it, but for the life of me can't figure out why she would give an example about the man asking the boy did he believe in Jesus. She said he demanded the boy get on his knees and pray for forgiveness.
I'm almost 89 years old and never in my life have ever heard of any Christian doing this. It's not that I doubt someone could possibly do such an unusual thing, but why give an example that 99 percent of the people have never heard of? Just saying.
Honor MLK day
Why do some white people hate black people? They are only showing disrespect to the black community by opening places of business or showing up for work on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.
I bet conservatives observed George Washington's and Abraham Lincoln's birthdays. It is high time to do some soul searching and stop being a bunch of hypocrites.
And it is high time we observe a national holiday for an American native. They have earned it. In the name of Christianity we stole their land, killed 10 million of their people with our diseases, slaughtering kids, old people, women and burning them at the stake.
The only thing the conservatives care about are the almighty dollar and cheap labor.
You know, I wish President Barack Obama had sent someone to France to march with other leaders for Charlie Hebdo, too.
But Republican pundits are blowing this up as if Obama had lied to the nation about weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida in an Arab nation where they weren't, then invaded that nation, destabilized a region and gotten us embroiled in a war that killed thousands of Americans, all while permitting a terrorist leader to escape for a decade.
If Obama had done that, the record shows, right-wingers would be just fine and happy and consider such actions supporting the troops.