Get unlimited digital access to $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion

There is nothing positive to be gained from allowing gays to marry, and much to lose

Regarding your editorial urging the Maryland General Assembly to pass a same-sex marriage bill, I have to disagree ("A vote of conscience," Jan. 31). Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The concept of separation of church and state was intended to keep the government out of religion, not to keep religion out of the government.

Religious arguments aside, the fact that openly gay individuals hold prominent positions in all professional fields demonstrates that there are no civil rights issues being violated. Even Christians as a group, who are among the most vocal opponents of the bill, accept homosexual individuals as human beings, even if we disagree with their lifestyle.

It is what the Bible teaches. That point was brought out repeatedly in the Marriage and Family Rally outside the State House this week.

Yes, there are those who call themselves Christians who are bigoted. But they are the exception rather than the rule, and they are acting outside the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, it is the few bigots who receive all the media attention that present the public with a distorted view of Christianity.

Furthermore, marriage is no assurance that couples will have the right to represent their significant other in the event of incapacitation. The only way to assure that is though a legal power of attorney assigning that right. This entails a trip to a lawyer's office. For example, look at the Terri Schiavo case. How many years was that case in court before her husband was allowed to take her off life support? They were a heterosexual, legally married couple, but their marriage license wasn't much help to Ms. Schiavo's husband.

Regarding benefits, heterosexual couples, and even single, widowed or divorced individuals have the same issues with benefits that homosexual couples do. The only solution for that is diligence in keeping one's affairs in order, but diligence is independent of marital status.

An example of a cultural change that started out with good intentions but turned out badly was the no-fault divorce, which was intended to simplify the breakup of marriages. Instead it opened a floodgate of fathers abandoning their families, which in turn led to an increase in the number of families in poverty.

Another example: The Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Many said this would bring about a situation in which every child who was born was wanted. Instead, over 48 million babies have been aborted, and child abuse is off the charts.

No matter what humans think, when we change God's design things become dangerous. There is nothing positive to be gained by passing a same sex-marriage bill, but much to lose.

LaVerne Cash, Bel Air

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Equality in Alabama
    Equality in Alabama

    These are heady days for advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this spring in a group of cases that could settle the question of a national Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and this week, a decision not to enter a stay on the enforcement of a...

  • A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]
    A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]

    Our view: Decision upholding Louisiana's ban on gay marriage is an outlier but an instructive one as the issue heads to the Supreme Court

  • Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]
    Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]

    Madeleine Mysko's recent commentary advised that 645 commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA will vote later this month whether to accept marriage equality for the LGBTQ community ("Presbyterians to vote on marriage equality," June 6).

  • The triumph of fairness [Editorial]
    The triumph of fairness [Editorial]

    Our view: Failure to put Maryland's transgender rights law on the ballot despite trumped-up fears should be a source of pride

  • Opposing gay rights doesn't make you a hater [Letter]

    According to Tom Schaller's column ("Hate if you must, just don't act on it," March 5), any American who does not subscribe to Mr. Schaller's particular credo on the law and homosexuality is a hater. Such blanket condemnation and name-calling are more appropriate to a bigot than an academic.

  • Despite veto, Arizona still looks bad [Letter]
    Despite veto, Arizona still looks bad [Letter]

    Just when I think nothing else outrageous can be done in the name of religious freedom, along comes the Arizona bill allowing business owners the legal right to refuse service to gays and others on the basis of said freedom.