Letters To The Editor

March 08, 2004

Olesker view of Bible wisdom fails a faith test

Michael Olesker's pragmatic approach to the issue of gay marriage simply doesn't work ("Gay couples should have opportunity to marry," March 2).

Mr. Olesker attributes his friend Patrick's sexuality to "an apparently loving God." He asks to be spared "those quotations from the Bible about marriage being the exclusive pairing of men with women." Then, with no pause, he declares, "The Bible also says God loves all his children. And it doesn't offer any footnotes listing exceptions to the rule."

Who said God loves all his children? That's right, God did. How do you we know that? We read it in the Bible, of course.

But Mr. Olesker says he doesn't want to be reminded of His statements about homosexuality. But if you don't believe what He said about homosexuality, why believe that He is a loving God?

You and I are incapable of making God. Either He exists or He does not exist, but a genuine God cannot be adjusted to what we think He should be.

We can only accept God for what He reveals Himself to be. We can only accept Him for what He says, not what we think He should say.

And it is not inconsistent to think that God could prohibit a certain behavior based upon love.

We can only accept God's love if we also accept His opinions regarding our well-being.

Tim Baldwin


Sexuality no basis for discrimination

I am a heterosexual female with a strong Christian faith, and I am appalled at President Bush's suggestion that there should be a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman ("Gay couples should have opportunity to marry," March 2).

Those who are against equal rights and opportunities for gays and lesbians in our society are no better than the bigoted people of 30 years ago who fought to keep blacks from having equal rights.

Sexuality is not a choice, just as race is not a choice. You are born with both.

Some people make the argument that homosexuality is wrong and against God. But studies suggest that as many as one person in 10 is gay. So why would God create 10 percent of the population gay if he hated homosexuality?

We live in a society in which the divorce rate is growing faster than the marriage rate. Heterosexuals are obviously not experts in marriage, yet some claim the right to deny the prospect of marriage to homosexuals.

The argument that marriage between gays and lesbians is not godly has no validity in this country. Church and state are two separate establishments.

Marriage is an institution in which two consenting adults make a commitment to share their lives together. What gives the government the right to deny the possibility of marriage to 10 percent of the population based on its sexuality?

Those individuals have the right to the same privileges as heterosexual couples.

Katherine Hudson

Owings Mills

Angry at suggestion of state tax increase

I am angered that Del. Sheila E. Hixson feels it is necessary to raise taxes to the tune of $500 million a year ("The slots fallacy," editorial, March 4).

As a single male who makes more than $50,000 a year, I fully understand where that tax increase is going to come from. And I, for one, am tired of footing the bill every time the state and city governments mismanage their finances.

I am tired of the "raise taxes" mantra for solving fiscal problems.

And I applaud the governor's efforts to locate another source of income for the state.

Douglas McLaughlin


Don't use slots to prop up racing

The only trouble with The Sun's editorial "Giveaway" (March 1) was that it didn't appear on the front page, where it no doubt would have reached a larger percentage of the newspaper's readership.

At this point, slots are probably inevitable. After all, with the lottery in place, it's not like we don't have some form of government-sanctioned gambling.

But the next two questions - who gets the profits and where the slots will be placed - are critical.

Slots would be more palatable to most of us if we knew the state would be getting all the available profits, and that they would not go to some dying institution such as horse racing, or to racetrack owners. In addition, slots would be seen more favorably if they were placed in areas that wouldn't affect neighborhoods.

Years ago, we were lured into accepting the lottery with the idea that the profits would go to education. We're being led down that same path again, but now, thanks to The Sun's editorial, we know who is waiting at the end of the path to receive the profits.

Barbara Blumberg


Rise and fall of Blair was not UM's making

David Folkenflik is a fine reporter whom I respect and admire. As dean of the school of journalism at the University of Maryland, College Park, I didn't agree with everything he wrote about Jayson Blair's time at the school, but on balance I have little quarrel with it ("The Making of Jayson Blair," Feb. 29).

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.