Two men live together “as one” and each calls the other his “husband.” Two women live together “as one” and each calls the other her “wife.” In many cases in such relationships I understand that some types of sexual intimacy occur which are considered very unhealthy and even life-threatening by a large number of our medical professionals. When I was a prison chaplain for many years at one of our state prisons for men, those men caught having sex with other men were automatically taken off the cell block where they could freely mingle with other men and put in a single cell where they would have no physical contact with other inmates. From the Jewish and Christian perspectives (Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27, respectively) this kind of intimacy is ungodly and the result of degrading passions. There is no way any of these forms of intimacy should be called marriage, either spiritually or legally. In Genesis 1:27 we are told that God created humankind in his image, male and female, and then gave them the responsibility of propagating the human race and being good stewards of all of creation. In Matthew 19:3-6 Jesus affirms the marriage of male and female as based in Genesis. This is a foundational order of creation and has been observed as such for thousands of years. It is essential for a civilized society and no individual or group or nation has the authority to change this definition of marriage. Recently our United States Congress passed what is called The Defense of Marriage Act. Both interracial marriage (man/woman) and gay (man/man and woman/woman) “marriage” are protected by this act. I firmly agree with protecting male/female interracial marriage but do not agree that the word marriage should be used to describe man/man and female/female relationships and do not agree that what we call gay “marriage” should be protected or called legal in any sense. If something is wrong it should not be blessed by any religion or government. Call such a “gay relationship” or “a coupling of two males or two females” or “an agreed upon intimacy of two men or two women” but do not call it marriage. To call such relationships marriage and give them either religious sanction or legal legitimacy is just plain wrong!Herbert Hash, Jr. Boone

Recommended for you

(6) comments


I have a few questions for Mr. Hash concerning which couples may, by his logic, be bestowed with the title of “married.”

If Hash’s definition of marriage is entirely judeo-christian—even though he simultaneously recognizes a legal definition of marriage, which must remain secular as per the first amendment, but I digress—are there not many opposite-sex marriages that therefore should not exist as well? If I and my opposite-sex spouse are atheist, or muslim, or buddhist, or hindi, or indigenous animists, does that make our marriage illegitimate by judeo-christian standards? What if one of us maintains faith in christianity, while the other practices a different religion? If, as Hash insists, marriage is primarily for procreation, should marriages between those who cannot conceive children for any reason be made illegal? What about married couples who practice polyamory? How should we think about the tens of thousands of years of sanctioned monogamous (and non-monogamous) couplings outside of the Western tradition? What about same-sex and two-spirit marriages amongst many native nations that took place on our own continent for millennia? Does four thousand years of judeo-christianity erase all other global cultures, conventions, and marriage traditions? What is Mr. Hash’s plan to dissolve all of our current, non-compliant, “illegitimate” “marriages?”

If this all sounds ridiculous, that's is. Fundamentalists do not own marriage, they did not invent it; they do not have a monopoly over it. Mr. Hash and others sharing his ideology may hold these views amongst their own cloistered communities, but they may not force it upon the rest of us.


Hate? Why do liberals think that if someone disagrees with them, that this is some kind of hate? One can be firm that homosexual activity is sin, and not hate homosexual people. Our Lord taught that we must ¨love our neighbors as we love ourselves¨ as one of His most important Commandments. He also hates sin, not sinners. Read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 26 and 27 as well as 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 10. Now, if a homosexual advocate does not believe in our Almighty God and Creator, then that´s alright with me, but on judgement day, it might just be a little late for eternal peace for that nonbeliever. That does not mean believers hate you, we pray that you reevaluate your relationship with your Creator before its too late for His promise of eternal peace in His kingdom.


As I clearly stated, I don't care what kind of twisted theology the author holds in their personal life, as long as they keep it to themselves and don't attempt to impose it upon the rest of us. The entire opinion letter, however, is about exactly that: imposing one's own twisted religious beliefs on the rest of the population, desiring to restrict basic rights to an entire class of people. That's hate, through and through, no matter how you try and dress it up as "love."

Clearly the author of this has chosen to ignore Matthew 7:1 "judge not lest ye be judged." He has taken it upon himself to determine what is right and wrong, and to mete out judgement as he sees fit (in this case through advocating that law/governments ought not recognize the right of LGBTQ folks to marry.) If he were truly Christian he would, as you put it, let God sort that out come judgement day. No?

I assume that if it's "alright with you" that you disagree with the author's primary assertion that LGBTQ folks should be denied the right to marry?

And please, don't quote the Old Testament to me. If you're Christian, that's not your book for crying out loud!! I sure hope that all your clothes are 100% cotton, cause if you've got any fiber blends in your closet, you're in trouble, too, sir! (go read Leviticus 19:19) If you're going to take the Old Testament seriously, and not just use it a bludgeon, you don't get to just pick and choose which rules you follow.

Finally, if it's gonna be folks like the author of this piece in heaven, give me heck* any day!!! Why on Earth would I want to spend eternity with a bunch of holier-than-thou, self-righteous bigots?!?

*WD is so pathetically puritanical in their censoring, that I can't even use the biblical term...


Are you clearly judging? Yes, and very hateful! By the way, Christians believe the Truth in both the Old and New Testament, which are very consistent in prophesy, history and wisdom. Maybe you should consider asking for help from our Creator -- there´s only two places we go at the end of life under the sun -- eternal peace seems like a much better place to go than the other place.


You refuse to address the primary point begin made, that the author is choosing to impose THEIR belief onto everyone else, regardless of whether or not others believe the same thing. You claim that "you're alright" with how people choose to live their lives, but then simultaneously seem to support preventing people from being able to have the right to marry someone they love, simply because YOU don't agree with it. Do I have that right?

You might want to reconsider your threat. Evangelicals are so self-absorbed that they actually think others WANT to believe the same stories they do, and that somehow because they've chosen to believe them, that they have the right to go around imposing it upon everyone else, claiming that it's out of "love." How would you react if a group of Buddhists, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Pagans showed up on your doorstep preaching to you? Or started passing laws that require you to act in accordance with those beliefs?

You know what? Don't answer. Because I already know that you're going to ignore the main points, as you've done on here for years now in our back and forths. I hope you have a wonderful life, I truly do, and I hope that you get what you think you deserve at the end of it. I only wish that y'all would stop trying to force your beliefs on the rest of us and let us live in peace.


Clearly you've never bothered to take the time to read the foundations of our government. One of the primary foundations is the *separation of church and state.*

If you want to hold such outrageously hateful and dated beliefs as you do, fine, do so in your personal life and keep it to yourself. But to pretend that you have the right to force your hate on others, your twisted version of Christ's teachings, that has no place in the rule of the law. If you want a theocracy, there are other countries where you might move, and I highly encourage you to do so. We don't need nor want your hate here.

Begone bigot.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.