Disagreeing over the definition of marriage doesn't make one 'anti-gay'

May 06, 2012

Letter writer Anna M. Harrison spoke of the "separation of church and state" and "the Inquisition" in describing Catholic parishes collecting signatures to petition Maryland's same-sex marriage law to referendum ("The Catholic Church has become a hurtful and hypocritical institution," May 3). She also approved of Susan Reimer's column "What would Jesus do? Not stuff like this" (April 30).

As to the separation of church and state, I vote based on my values, and my values are formed by my spiritual beliefs. Aren't my homosexual neighbors also voting on their beliefs?

As for her comment about an "Inquisition," since when is collecting signatures to have an issue placed on the ballot for voters to decide cruel and unreasonable? Isn't that democracy in action?

And as for her charge that the church is anti-gay, how is disagreeing over the definition of marriage anti-anyone? One can disagree over a definition without disliking individuals.

It is always interesting to read other people's opinions of what Jesus would do under certain conditions. Frequently the answers do not reflect what Jesus said in the Scriptures. Scripture points out that when people disagreed with Jesus, he did not call them back, nor did he change what he said.

Finally, regarding civil rights, my homosexual neighbors have the right to civil unions. They can legally petition for rights under these unions to insurance companies or wherever. I wish them no ill will. But as a part of this society, I want the word "marriage" to continue meaning the union of one man and one woman.

Myra Welsh, Cockeysville

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.