Madam, Whatever some people may think, Christians in this country still have the freedom to hold and express their opinions. I thought that Ruth Smith's letter about marriage (January 16th) was calm, reasonable, and respectful. Not so the insulting tirade from Sara Herriott (January 23rd).

The fact is that marriage is not in the power of the government or society to re-define to suit its own changing mores. It doesn't belong to them. Nor for that matter does it belong to any particular church. It belongs to God, who instituted it (see Genesis chapter 1) and through Jesus confirmed its unchangeable nature (Gospel of Matthew chapter 19) and blessed it (Gospel of John chapter 2).

Those same-sex couples who choose to cohabit already have available the provisions of Civil Partnerships to grant them all the same civil rights that married people have. Many homosexuals and lesbians, perhaps most, are content with that. The demand for same-sex marriage is coming from a militant minority.

So far, at the time of writing, 628,614 UK residents over the age of 16 have signed the Coalition For Marriage's petition opposing the proposed re-definition, making this one of the biggest petitions ever - and still growing. For more information see their website at http://c4m.org.uk/">http://c4m.org.uk/

Neville Fowler, Weston under Penyard

MADAM, Sara Herriot's letter and the intolerant and supercilious tone of her attack on Ruth Smith's view of marriage gives me cause for concern. She states that Ruth's views should not be allowed in an newspaper! Oh dear. So only Sara's opinion should be printed?

I agree with a lot of what Ruth wrote. The sexes do provide complementary qualities in a child's upbringing – if not, why do single mothers often seek a male friend to be a 'role model' for their child? It is well established that children thrive best in a stable loving home with a mother and father firmly committed in a marriage.

However loving a relationship between a same sex couple it can never be a marriage. From a purely biological point of view it is a nonsense. They already have exactly the same rights as married couples through a civil partnership.

If marriage is redefined it will not only have a devastating impact on civil liberties but many other aspects of our free society will be forced to accommodate.

Ms Herriott's letter suggests that she hasn't given the topic much intelligent consideration.

This is my opinion and if I am not allowed to hold it or state it without consequences, then this country is heading in a very dangerous direction.

Veronica Amand, Ross