Letter: Definition of marriage is sacred

As a senior in high school, there is a lot of pressure to conform to the newest collective opinion. Social changes can be positive or negative things — there is no question about that. But why do so many belittle the expression of gay marriage being a step in the negative direction?


Same-sex marriage is currently being litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court as a being a civil right. So, I have chosen to be a voice for the few youth opposing same-sex marriage.

My belief is from a viewpoint that entrusts God with ultimate authority, wisdom and knowledge, accompanied with the belief that the Bible is a legitimate source in whole; decided from my own spiritual experience. If your standards don’t have a basis by which to flow, you may have trouble understanding the concept of forming your faith on what the Bible states to be true (even if that truth is harder or less comfortable to follow). This includes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is a sin. Still, all have the freewill to choose what they will believe.

Relatively, civil rights are defined as personal liberties that belong to an individual. Immunities (one of two forms of liberty) are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another’s enjoyment of his or her life. So, if a person wants to live a homosexual lifestyle in pursuit of happiness, that is completely supported by law, even if it is not by what I believe to be a higher law, the word of God.

With that said, there is the issue of calling the commitment between same-sex partners “marriage.” I understand that word meanings change over history, but that is often from perpetual metaphoric use. The fundamental meaning of a word cannot be changed. For example: red cannot be called blue. They are both colors just as homosexual partnering and traditional marriage are both relationships, but the specific terms given to the individual existents cannot be interchanged. When something new is invented, it is logical to also create a new word to accompany it.

Sincerely, I feel like my religious understanding on what marriage entails is being oppressed. It is my right to keep the two different commitments separate in my principles, however, it is the modification of a sacred, personal meaning that I am opposed to.

I wanted to address the court’s upcoming decision in hopes to help some understand an alternative: saying no to the redefinition of marriage.

Please look at Janet Boynes Ministries online at www.janetboynesministries.com/ and watch the video on C-Span from March 28 called the “Discussion on Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage” for more information.

Avery Bunton,



  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2230
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback






Loud fireworks should be banned

I have lived in the Mendenhall Valley for 34 years. Consumer fireworks were not an issue for most of those years. When the city fireworks... Read more

Personal use of fireworks should be open to a public vote

Another Fourth of July suffering through eight-10 hours of unending firework displays all around us.

Read more

Pharmacy plan may affect retiree benefits

It has come to our attention that Gov. Bill Walker has unilaterally decided to enroll Alaska Public Employees’ Retirement System and Teachers’ Retirement System Retirees... Read more