"For Question 6: Maryland should be consistent with the intent of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. We are the “Free State” afterall."
It was a Sunday night about 6 years ago and my parents called me up. I said I couldn’t talk too long because I was headed out to the movies. My father asked “Which movie are you going to see?” A bit hesitantly, I replied, “Brokeback Mountain.” I was not expecting my 92-year-old Dad to reply, “What a terrific movie. We saw it Tuesday. Excellent acting, beautiful setting, interesting story.”
I was shocked. I would not have expected my elderly parents to approve of this film. ”Dad, did you know what it was about before you went,” I asked.
“Of course we knew, we don’t live in a cave,” he replied. “Listen to me, two guys walk into a carpet store. The first guy likes blue carpet, the other guy likes green carpet. That’s just the way the world is.”
My parents were both Holocaust survivors and understood in a very profound way what discrimination meant.
-Toni Greenberg, Reisterstown, Md.
I am FOR Question 6: On any given day while reading the Sun, it is clear that we live in a world filled with way too much hate, violence, and sorrow. If two people - regardless of gender - want to make a life-long commitment to each other based on being in love, I say bravo! It’s time we speak out for fairness and equality … it’s time we stand up for marriage equality … President Obama is FOR Question 6, Congressman Cummings is FOR Question 6, I am FOR Question 6.
- Steven Rivelis, Baltimore, Md.
I read both of two debates published in the Sun - “Vote no to immorality” and “Same-sex couples are good parents.” I am in total agreement with a vote against question 6. I have gay friends and family members; however to me, marriage has nothing to do with their equal rights. They can buy homes together, get insurance together, decide to be buried together, adopt a child together and enjoy just about everything that heterosexual couples enjoy. What does marriage have to do with it? You are not man and woman. Period. Enjoy your life, and be happy that you have these rights. A marriage ceremony/license is only a small part of it.
- Marie Harvin, Baltimore, Md.
On November 7, however the votes may have fallen, I will still be marrying my fiancee. He proposed, I said “of course,” and we’re going to be married next October. For or against, the votes won’t change that.
Question 6 isn’t about redefinition. Marylanders already define marriage in a myriad of ways — some people are in the same relationship for decades, others are on their third or fourth partners, but it is all still marriage. Question 6 is about opening up the same civil rights afforded to some Americans for all Americans, regardless of the make-up of their family. I shouldn’t have to spend thousands of dollars on lawyer fees just to secure the right to visit my spouse in the hospital, should it ever come to that. No one for Question 6 is begging to get the church involved, that’s the beauty of the bill. You can maintain your religious opinions, for or against, without denying anyone’s civil rights.
- Carl Armstrong, Baltimore, Md.
"Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that we are a Christian nation or that the religious majority has the right to impose their doctrine on the remainder of the population."
“Don’t limit the freedom to marry.”
I’m a bit confused by this statement. After all, there’s all sorts of limits involved in marriage. Marriage is limited to those who are not close relatives. Marriage is limited by age — a 14-year-old can’t get married even if she is “in love.” Marriage is limited by species. You can’t marry your pet. And marriage is limited by number. You can’t marry two women at the same time, or three men.
While I suspect that at least some of these ideas strike most of us as distasteful or even repulsive, let’s be frank—there are individuals and indeed groups in our country today advocating every one of these positions. And while some today advocate the union of two men as a “marriage” (or two women for that matter), I think most people know that there is something unique and undeniably special in the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Anyone who has lived long enough or talked deeply with people has seen and heard the many devastating effects that go along with every sexual coupling other than one man and one woman joined for life under God.
It saddens me to now live in a state, as well as a nation, who has forgotten the moral foundation that made this nation great. Last I heard, there is no law that keeps people from choosing any lifestyle they want. This appears to be an all-out attack against Christians who believe what the Bible says, and what Americans and the world used to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It has never stopped those who choose to live otherwise. So why do the push to make it a law? Passing a law won’t change what people believe. Just punish those who don’t agree and force our children to be more confused as they are forced to accept what may go against the morals taught in their homes and places of worship. I pray for Maryland and our nation that Jesus be merciful.
- Reath Ann, Edgewood, Md.
Common rhetoric among marriage equality opponents is that supporters are trying to “redefine marriage.” Well, yeah, we’re trying to change the definition of marriage according to the state. So what? You’re just stating our goals, not explaining what’s wrong with the redefinition of marriage.
Because in reality, there’s nothing wrong with the redefinition of marriage. “Traditional” or “biblical” marriage is actually one man and as many wives, concubines, and slaves as he could afford. Traditional marriage was a business transaction that treated women as property to be owned by their husbands. Marriage was originally a completely secular ritual.
When the church declared marriage a holy sacrament in 1215, they redefined marriage. When the church declared that marriage must be performed by a priest, in public, in front of witnesses (in the 16th century,) they redefined marriage. When polygamy was outlawed, they redefined marriage. Divorce is a redefinition of marriage. Second, third, and fourth marriages are redefinition of marriage. A wife being equal to her husband is a redefinition of marriage.
So I really don’t get your point. Yes, we are trying to “redefine marriage.” That’s our explicitly stated goal. Now that you understand what we’re trying to do, could you please explain why you oppose it?
No one defines my marriage but my husband and me! And, I will not define anyone else’s marriage. It is sinful for anyone to impose their religious beliefs on other people. Period.
I will vote YES.