February 2, 2011
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.
March 23, 2012
While some of the ideas in your editorial about the mayor's skybox ("The people's skybox," March 21) had merit, anyone who read your statement that sometimes "the invitees seem to serve little public purpose" needs to understand that the purpose being served is the same one shared by the majority of Maryland politicians: Currying favor and getting reelected. The skybox is just another political tool for that purpose. Ruth Mascari, Monkton
February 3, 2011
If we take Peter Sprigg's commentary on the "public purpose" of marriage seriously, then our legislators better get busy drafting some new bills. ( "Same-sex marriage is contrary to the public interest," Feb. 2.) Mr. Sprigg insists that marriage is only about making and raising babies, in the natural, God-ordained way. If that is the case, then we need to include new rules on which heterosexual couples will be allowed to apply for a marriage license. Infertile? Don't bother thinking about marriage.
November 15, 2012
Question 6 has thankfully passed, but I would like to respond to the letter written by Lynda Kouroupis ("Allowing same-sex marriage destroys 'treasured institution'," Nov. 1. In her letter, Ms. Kouroupis states all the benefits of marriage as related to child rearing by a heterosexual couple only. I'm wondering, should a heterosexual couple unable to have children (past child-bearing age, sterilized, etc.) be unable to marry? Should, after a certain number of years of attempting unsuccessfully to have children, such a marriage would no longer be considered valid?
September 18, 2011
First baseman Mark Reynolds was out of the starting lineup Sunday for precautionary reasons after he was hit in the head by Los Angeles Angels pitcher Ervin Santana in the third inning of Saturday night's game. Reynolds said Sunday morning that he felt fine except for a sore spot above his left temple. He also left no doubt that he feels Santana hit him intentionally in his first at-bat after he slammed his 34th homer off the Angels right-hander. "I think he hit me on purpose," Reynolds said.
December 22, 2002
I am no historian. But I've always been fascinated by the sense of purpose, the intent, of writers of histories that have engaged me -- from Herodotus to Stephen Ambrose, whose final book, To America, I wrote about just last week. I read books of history, and their first cousin, historical biographies, with great interest. If I could read at five times my natural speed, I would surely read more histories. Never before, though, have I come across a book that so illuminated the craft of the historian than The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, by John Lewis Gaddis (Oxford, 224 pages, $23)