Anti-gay marriage diatribe full of inconsistencies

February 02, 2011

Peter Sprigg's diatribe against same sex marriage ("Same-sex marriage is contrary to the public interest," Feb. 2) is so full of contradictions and half-truths that it is difficult to decide where to begin responding.

Assuming for the sake of argument that "the public purpose" of marriage is the procreation and rearing of children — although there is no reason to conclude that marriage has any one, exclusive "public purpose" — even Mr. Sprigg acknowledges that heterosexual couples marry for a host of "private purposes" and the state recognizes those marriages as valid even if the couple never intends to nor has children. Why should same sex couples be treated any differently?

Mr. Sprigg cites a number of studies comparing the children of married couples with the children of single parents to prove that children do better if raised by two parents. But that's comparing apples and oranges. Every study of the children of same sex couples has shown they fare as well as the children of straight couples.

I can personally attest to this fact. As a straight, married father of an adopted child, I am friends with a number of same sex adoptive parents. All the same sex parents I know are excellent parents in healthy, loving committed relationships. It is no accident that support for same-sex marriage increases as more people become personally acquainted with same-sex couples. I doubt Mr. Sprigg knows a single same-sex couple with kids, or he could not hold these unsupported and erroneous beliefs.

Sheldon H. Laskin, Baltimore

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.