Marriage

It is not unusual to see art that tackles social and political issues, but there's still something startling about Jeffrey Kent's solo show "Preach!" at the Frederick Douglass-Isaac Myers Maritime Park. The Baltimore artist zeros in on opposition by some African-Americans, especially in churches, to same-sex marriage. Kent employs provocative imagery, including minstrel figures in blackface, and an evocative substance: cotton. The impetus for the recently completed project goes back to 2008.

In citing his objection to same sex marriage ("Redefining marriage in Md?" March 2), CardinalEdwin F. O'Brienfails to acknowledge that our laws are not based upon religious dogma but upon the precepts of our Constitution. Indeed our founding document not only offers specific protection from the undue influence of religious authority but likewise guarantees the equal protection of individual rights. From that perspective, marriage between two loving same-sex adults is hardly a "radical" notion as the cardinal has so characterized but one that is consistent with the exercise of long standing ideals that underlie our democracy.

In casting their ballots for Question 6, what Maryland voters were actually doing was putting their stamp of approval on homosexuality. Most gays and lesbians aren't interested in getting married. They do want to have same-sex relationships and not be called names for doing so. It will be interesting to see how many marriages occur in this group. If there is no significant increase in same-sex unions, a terrible mistake was made. An institution that has kept the human race in existence since its beginning will have been irreversibly changed for nothing.

Try as I might - and I really have tried because I've wanted to see this issue from the other side - I just don't understand how anyone's marriage, much less a same-sex one, threatens anyone else's marriage, anyone else's way of life, anyone else's family, or anyone else's religion. And let's get one thing out of the way: Same-sex couples are not trying to force religious faiths to make the sacrament of marriage available to them. They are petitioning the government to recognize the validity of same-sex unions and accord them the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.

Noel Tshiani wasn't at his wedding — he listened by phone in another country to the ceremony in the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to court records — but he's just as married as if he'd stood at his bride's side. And soon, he'll be just as divorced and responsible for alimony and child support, a Maryland court has ruled. A World Bank employee, Tshiani was working in another African country when he and Marie-Louise Tshiani married in a 1993 ceremony. He answered questions and listened to the ceremony by telephone, while his cousin stood in his place for the ceremony, court records say. The exchange among families included money, clothes and a goat, and within days, the bride flew to join her husband, according to court records.

Our Constitution acknowledges the existence of absolute and unchangeable natural law. Natural law is discerned by the use of reason. Reason has long discerned that the male and female bodies are constructed for the begetting of offspring; offspring in need of the complementary mother and father role models. Reason discerns that society significantly recognizes and supports this natural relationship for the good of society. Society has wisely done so for generations, until recent years.

Marriage is the essential procreative unit of society, bonding mother and father, and bonding father and children. Redefining marriage breaks those bonds. Studies demonstrate children fare best with a married mother and father. Maryland jurisprudence holds that legal benefits for married couples are justified by society's interest in protecting children. Supporting marriage is not the state affirming that two adults love each other, but the state supporting an environment best suited for children.

The Sun has a lot of gall to emphatically state in its editorial that "legalization of same sex marriage is inevitable " or that "it's the direction in which the country is moving" ("Marriage, equality and Maryland," Feb. 16). The last time I checked there were 50 states in this country and those that prohibit same-sex marriage are far more numerous than paltry handful of states that allow it. Benefits such as health care decisions, inheritance taxes, etc. can be addressed without allowing people of the same sex to marry.

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.

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