I feel that Mara Deutch's column, "Government should stay out of marriage, let religion handle it," (SN 6/09), means well and does touch on key factors in the current marriage debate. But there is one point shadowed by the headline's suggestion.

The devil's advocate might say if marriage were to be an entirely religious act, then atheists would have a very difficult time tying the knot. At least those who don't want to pretend they believe in the unproven would have difficulty.

Would religion-only marriages still include the legal benefits? I believe a certain amount of people would fail to see the point if that were the case.

Also some people do currently get married for the legal benefits. Take the story of Canadians Bill Dalrymple and Bryan Pinn, for instance — two heterosexual males, who married for tax breaks.

In any case, I agree wholeheartedly that religion shouldn't interfere with anything that the government has a part in.

The trouble is getting the apparent majority of Americans to agree that my business is not their business.

And just as a disclaimer, I'm not atheist, I'm just raising a point.

David Sahlin
telecommunication, information studies and media senior