Marriage

Thank God for Joan and Don. Without their lunchtime escape from the office, replete with witty, sexy banter, this episode, the worst of the season, would have been pointless. Nothing else quite worked here, in what clearly was a transitional throwaway leading up to the final few episodes this season. I, for one, do not care about Lane's financial issues (though, surely him forging Don's signature on a check to pay debts will come back to bite him). Anything involving Harry is sort of blah, even though his subplot this week brought back and old friend, Paul Kinsey, who has, ahem, gone through some changes.

I suggest that The Sun and the Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland are in too much haste to agree with a too-loud, aggressive minority ("Another boost for same-sex marriage," May 21). The grant of a divorce for a same-sex couple who had married out-of-state was premature and wrong. Admittedly, under current public policy, laws could readily and easily be enacted which grant to civil unions of same-sex couples gone astray from the laws of nature, all of the very same rights and equal protection of the laws that married couples now enjoy.

In regard to the issue of same-sex marriage, there are really only two defining aspects to the core discussion, and which of these two you choose to focus upon will ultimately determine your final position, regardless of religious or political affiliation. Religion holds far less significance in this debate than is popularly portrayed by the media. The essence of this controversy is philosophical, not religious. The first consideration is that, in accepting same-sex marriage, we must of necessity be willing to re-define something that has a long tradition in many human cultures.

//UPDATE: This post has been changed to add more information about the methodology of the poll. A new automated poll released today by gay advocates shows 57 percent of Marylanders would support same-sex marriage at the ballot box and 37 percent would oppose it -- a stunning 20 point gap in favor of the new law. It is by far the most optimistic survey on the issue. The numbers put Maryland's support for same-sex marriage ahead of national figures. A more traditional poll released Wednesday by Washington Post-ABC News shows 53 percent of Americans favoring same-sex marriage, which is a new high.

We've been hearing a lot about marriage lately from celibate clergy and other experts, so I thought that a layman's prspective might be of interest. Much of the talk keeps returning to procreation as the fundamental component of marriage, presumably because of the "be fruitful and multiply" injunction in the Creation story, though neither the church nor the state objects to the marriage of people who are past childbearing age, or unable to bear children, or uninterested in bearing children.

Since when are we living in the 1950s? Or the 1850s or the 1750s or the 1650s, for that matter for a newspaper to print an op-ed stating that the only reason for marriage is for procreation ( "Same-sex marriage is contrary to the public interest," Feb. 2)? I am a happily married, heterosexual, devoutly Christian woman with three children, and I am absolutely appalled you would print that. Peter Sprigg is entitled to his opinion, but it is irresponsible of you to print it. Our society has long since recognized that marriage is about the love and commitment two people have for each other.

If Maryland becomes a same-sex marriage state, there is no doubt that some openly gay men and women will come to church demanding acceptance. Under the false pretense that they are married, in their minds they should not be denied church membership. But what the world must understand is that as Christians, we're not homophobic and bigoted as many would depict us. We do not hate men and women caught up in the homosexual lifestyle. We simply believe that marriage is ordained of God and the family is sacred.

The recent letter from R. Smith ("The flawed arguments against same-sex marriage," Feb. 6) is false and disingenuous. The logic is fallacious because the examples do not define the object, in this case the Biblical definition of marriage. The bad examples and failures do not change marriage as between one man and one woman. And they do not justify changing marriage to include same-sex couples. God had a lot to say about marriage. Most specifically, in the beginning, God created humans as male and female.

In response to R. Smith's recent letter ("The flawed arguments against same-sex marriage," Feb. 6), it is quite clear to me that the writer has never read the Bible. God made it quite clear that a marriage is not made of two people of the same gender. Specifically, I refer to Matthew 19:4-6, "that at the beginning, the creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. ... So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

I can understand the Catholic Church not recognizing or performing same-sex marriages. I can also understand the church not recognizing or performing marriages where one party is divorced and has a spouse living. The church takes the attitude that marriage is between one man and one woman for life. Fine. But I don't understand the church taking such a different attitude to the two situations. I don't recall the church ever denouncing Ronald Reagan for living in open adultery - even though in the eyes of the church that is what his "marriage" to Nancy Davis amounted to, assuming his first marriage was a valid marriage and not a sham.

In regard to the issue of same-sex marriage, there are really only two defining aspects to the core discussion, and which of these two you choose to focus upon will ultimately determine your final position, regardless of religious or political affiliation. Religion holds far less significance in this debate than is popularly portrayed by the media. The essence of this controversy is philosophical, not religious. The first consideration is that, in accepting same-sex marriage, we must of necessity be willing to re-define something that has a long tradition in many human cultures.

There is a saying that "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. " That seems to sum up the Republican approach to all issues. The latest example is the GOP-controlled House, which just passed a budget bill that bans the use of military facilities for gay marriages. Gay discrimination in the military has ended. Gay marriage is legal is many states. Yet the Republicans have used a religious approach to everything and now have applied it the budget. There is medical condition in which fluid builds up in the wrist, causing swelling that looks like a small knot on the skin.

As if robocalls didn't have a bad enough reputation in the world of Baltimore media and politics thanks to consultant Julius Henson's activity in the last gubernatorial election, along comes WBFF (Channel 45) Monday night with its own questionable computer-generated calls into hundreds of thousands on Maryland homes. And the calls continued Tuesday. I received one at my home in Baltimore City both days. Racquel Guillory, director of communications for Gov. Martin O'Malley, also received one at home in Howard County Monday night around dinnertime.

Stephanie Posey and Ryan Dougherty were joined in marriage on Feb. 11, at Corpus Christi Roman Catholic Church, in Baltimore. The Rev. Martin H. Demek celebrated the nuptial Mass. The bride is the daughter of J. Steven and Debra Posey, of La Plata. The groom is son of Thomas and Robin Dougherty, of Parkville. Presented in marriage by her father, the bride was attended by her close friend, Cara Myers, matron of honor. Bridesmaids were Brianna Twait, Caitlin Dougherty, Amy Ziegler, Jessica Watts, Taryn Igoe, Megan Loewe, and Stephanie Cox. Best men were Kevin Stern and James Hardesty.

As to the commentary by Michael J. McManus ("Gay marriage seals Obama's fate," May 17), I am still surprised that some in the black community are against equal marriage rights for gays. It wasn't so long ago that black people didn't have any rights in this country and how soon they forget. I predict that Maryland will vote on favor of gay marriage, much to Mr. McManus' disappointment. And same-sex marriage is as good as traditional marriage. When two people love each other, it doesn't matter who they are. I make another prediction that should disappoint Mr. McManus: President Barack Obama will be reelected.

Marriage is a choice that two people make, and the legal system shouldn't be a third party to the decision. Making same-sex marriage illegal is akin to criminalizing a black person's marriage to a white person or an American's right to marry a Mexican. The law has no business in the personal choice of who to marry. An American should have the right to marry the person of their choice. I am disgusted by the self-righteous, pious church-going Americans who want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" by forbidding gay people the right to marry.

You keep hearing this mantra repeated by those who would prevent same-sex couples from marrying, "God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. " Where do they get this stuff? Have they never read their Bible? It is clear from Genesis on that God intended marriage to be between one man and many women. All of the patriarchs had numerous wives, and King Solomon, who apparently was wealthy enough to afford them, had one thousand. We may question his wisdom, but not his stamina.

It's rare that I voice my opinion in a public forum, but God bless you, Erma M. Durkin of Glen Arm, who wrote "A Catholic makes the case for same-sex marriage" (March 9). The infinite wisdom of this woman goes beyond her 81 years, more than I can say for our elected officials. Everyone should read her article. Nancy Roberts, Essex

How ironic that a divorce will be remembered for strengthening the rights of all Marylanders to be married regardless of sexual orientation. With its slam-dunk 7-0 opinion issued Friday in the matter of two women seeking a divorce, the Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that Maryland must recognize same-sex marriages legally certified elsewhere. It's a huge victory for the ongoing efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland and adds a whole new dimension to this fall's referendum.