Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99

Opinion

News Opinion

Same-sex marriage opponent makes outrageous claims

It seems odd that the voice for a "no" vote on Question 6 should be that of a Virginia legislator, but even stranger is his argument against Question 6 ("Vote no to immorality," Oct. 27).

Virginia Del. Bob Marshall argues that Christian theology should govern this country. If he would object to Sharia law being imposed on us, he should be just a vigorous in objecting to Halacha (Jewish religious law), or strict Catholicism, Calvinism, or Confucianism. This is a secular nation, decidedly not a Christian theocracy. As a legislator, he should be conversant with the Constitution and its First Amendment, which unambiguously states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

But Delegate Marshall ignores the law he is sworn to uphold. And why not? In addition to the law of the land, he's also allergic to facts. The New Family Structures Study, which he uses to support his position, has come under scrutiny for slipshod methodology and biased sampling, leading one social science researcher to say, "the way it was conducted is so breathtakingly sloppy that it is useful only as an illustration of how you can play fast and loose with statistics." Mr. Marshall might as well have used sheep livers to support his position, for all the validity of this sad survey.

Except for his argument being aimed at gays, it is identical to the ones used to justify miscegenation laws in the last century.

He then concludes his foolish diatribe with "while all persons are created equal, not all behavior is equal." He seems to believe that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. It is not. If Mr. Marshall wants to promote bigotry, intolerance, intellectual dishonesty, and second-class citizens in his state, that's between him and the people of Virginia. But it should carry no weight among voters here in Maryland.

Mitch Edelman, Finksburg

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Religious freedom and the Constitution
    Religious freedom and the Constitution

    What many people forget is that the framers of our Constitution, through the First Amendment, sought to guarantee both freedom of religion and freedom from religion ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof").

  • The 'war for gay rights' has no winners or losers
    The 'war for gay rights' has no winners or losers

    Columnist Jonah Goldberg's recent commentary about Indiana's Religious Freedom and Restoration Act missed the point ("How do 'religious freedom' acts encourage discrimination?" April 3).

  • Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination
    Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination

    A recent suggestion that some people should be exempt from serving gays because of their religious beliefs is nonsense. If you are licensed to provide a service or employed by the government to do so, you are required to perform that service without unlawful discrimination. Neither government employment...

  • 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 federal...

  • Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]
    Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]

    Our view: Same-sex marriage is set to be legal in a majority of states, making eventual Supreme Court victory appear inevitable

  • Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter
    Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter

    In his recent column ("The conservative case for same-sex marriage," March 29), Eddie Zipperer gives three reasons why conservatives should favor same sex marriage. I find his second, poking fun at the Bible, to be both offensive and ignorant.

  • Indiana learns discrimination is bad business
    Indiana learns discrimination is bad business

    The leaders of large corporations have not generally been at the vanguard of civil rights movements in this country. The average CEO is usually more concerned about stock valuations and quarterly dividends than about fighting discrimination. And when was the last time you saw the money-hungry NCAA...

  • Selective reading of Leviticus won't justify bigotry
    Selective reading of Leviticus won't justify bigotry

    Letter writer Adam Goldfinger objected to Eddie Zipperer's references to Leviticus and states that he does indeed try to follow the laws in this book ("Yes, some people do follow the bible to the letter," April 3). I find myself wondering how many people Mr. Goldfinger has personally stoned to...

Comments
Loading

54°