January 25, 2006
The Sun's editorial commenting on a court ruling that Maryland's marriage laws discriminate against gays opines that Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock "has put Maryland squarely on the side of progressive forces that rightly are following a broad societal trend" ("Marriage equality," Jan. 22).
I assume the trend to which the author is referring is the trend of unelected, unaccountable judges overreaching to discover new "rights" in the Constitution that were heretofore invisible to the rest of us?
But what about the trend in which every state that has had a ballot measure defending traditional marriage has passed the measure when it came before voters?
Or the trend of poll after poll which show that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject the so-called "right" of homosexuals to marry?
Marriage is not a universal right.
Do I have the right to marry my sister? Do I have the right to marry three women? Do I have the right to marry my cat?
Of course not, because marriage is what it is: the lifelong union of a man and a woman that flows from the natural order and complementarity of the sexes.
The so-called progressive forces in this country know that the only way to foist their agenda of radical cultural upheaval on the rest of us is to have such measures handed down by activist judges, who in essence become "super-legislators," twisting the Constitution to fit their cultural agenda.
The state has a compelling interest in defending marriage as a bedrock institution of society for the good of children and the good of communities.
So-called gay marriage does not further this common good.
I sincerely pray that Maryland legislators will have the wisdom and courage to stand up to the so-called "progressives" who have no idea what marriage truly means, and put before the people of Maryland a constitutional amendment defining marriage once and for all as it was meant to be.
Joseph Melchor
Catonsville
Extending marriage is reason to rejoice
Del. Don H. Dwyer Jr. called Friday, the day a Baltimore Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of equality in marriage, "a sad day for the state of Maryland" ("Gay marriage ban falls," Jan. 21).
I think it was no sadder than the countless days on which state school test results have revealed Maryland students' shortcomings in math.
And I'd offer a little simple math for Mr. Dwyer and for Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., who vowed to "protect marriage in the state."
Lisa Polyak, who is 44 years old, and Gita Deane, 43 - the lead plaintiffs in the marriage equality lawsuit - have been together 25 years.
Subtract the years the two women have been in a committed relationship from their ages, and it becomes clear to me that theirs is a love which has certainly withstood time (and has endured from a rather formative period in their respective lives).
How many legal marriages last as long as Ms. Polyak and Ms. Deane's relationship has?
Their years together should be treated by this state's laws as nothing short of, less than or separate from marriage - one that deserves protection under the state's laws.
James Egan
Baltimore
When Republican Del. Don H. Dwyer Jr. declares "It's a sad day for the state of Maryland" he is obviously not taking into account gay Marylanders who have been denied the rights of marriage and the many citizens of this state who support their effort to secure that right.
I say "bravo" to Baltimore Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock for a thoughtful decision.
Those who oppose her have a right to their opinions - but please do not include all Marylanders when making such overwrought pronouncements.
Kimberly Nolan
Baltimore
Excluding gays just another prejudice
Mayor Martin O'Malley says he "was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman" ("Gay marriage ban falls," Jan. 21).
So was I, Mr. Mayor.
I was also raised to believe that Catholics are idolaters, that Jews are Christ-killers, that women are inferior to men and a whole lot of other nonsense I put behind me when I began to think for myself.
Whenever people ask for basic human rights, they should be granted those rights. That's only humane.
Anything less is discrimination and causes suffering - and that's just plain wrong.
Catherine Hudson
Baltimore
Marital commitment boosts whole society
In return for a legally binding commitment with its attendant responsibilities, the state gives certain rights and benefits to married couples that help them to take better care of each other and their children.
This benefits all Marylanders, regardless of their marital status.
Thus extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would be good for society as a whole, not just for those directly affected ("Gay marriage ban falls," Jan. 21).
I hope the good people of Maryland will keep this in mind during the debate that will surely follow this ruling.
Pam Garrettson
Baltimore
Board is too cozy with bar owners
