Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

For Question 6 because we love Maryland

Marriage equality has never been approved at the ballot box anywhere in the country. But all that could change profoundly in less than two weeks in Maryland.

Marylanders will be heading to the polls to uphold Question 6, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which protects religious freedom and equal rights under the law. Recent polls show a majority of voters support the measure, but we know from other states that it will be close.

As public servants, we do not believe that government has any business telling one class of couples that they cannot marry. The 14th Amendment guarantees us all equal protection under the law, and that's what Maryland's Question 6 does — it treats all citizens equally under the law, while protecting religious freedom at the same time. Both of us made sure such protections were included in the bills we worked to pass through the legislatures in each of our states.

On a personal level, both of us have deep ties to Maryland: one of us a lifelong Marylander, the other an alumnus and board member of the Johns Hopkins University. We want our families, friends, neighbors and staff to have the same opportunity we have to marry — and to marry in Maryland, this state that we love.

It was a historic moment last year when marriage equality became law in the state of New York. It was a bipartisan victory that enjoyed the backing of a majority of New Yorkers young and old, Fortune 500 companies, and faith communities — similar to the coalition that came together to help pass Maryland's marriage equality law.

At the time, opponents of marriage issued warnings about how life in New York would change. They said that there would be "unintended consequences" for New York if same-sex marriage became legal. They were wrong.

Nothing has changed, except now thousands of committed couples, parents and their children can enjoy the same equal protection under the law. And despite the warnings from opponents, marriage equality has actually been good for business in New York. New York City alone has generated an estimated $259 million in economic impact in the first year after same-sex marriage passed.

Right now in Maryland, we're hearing the same warnings from the same opponents using the same old playbook. Their scare tactics won't work this time, either.

The way forward is always found through greater respect for the equal rights and dignity of all. And it is this belief in treating everyone equally under the law that has led to the surge in momentum in favor of Question 6.

The country has moved at lightning speed on the question of marriage equality in the past two years. A majority of the American people support marriage for gay and lesbian couples, as do some of the nation's largest and most respected companies. Six states and the District of Columbia have a marriage equality law on the books already.

And we're expecting Maryland to be the seventh. It's going to be a close race, but at the end of the day we believe voters will decide it's the right thing to do to treat their gay friends, neighbors, sons, daughters and other family members fairly and equally under the law.

Michael R. Bloomberg is mayor of New York City. Martin O'Malley is governor of Maryland. His email is governor@maryland.gov.

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").

  • Marriage equality can't wait

    Marriage equality can't wait

    In 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, there was not a single dissent. Never mind that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute had been in the books since 1924. The justices unanimously found discrimination in the institution of marriage...

  • 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

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • 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...

  • The struggle for gay rights isn't over

    The struggle for gay rights isn't over

    The reasoning behind the "righteous outrage" that commentator Jonah Goldberg uses to describe "know-nothings of every stripe" who are serious about protecting civil rights is twisted at best ("How do 'religious freedom' acts encourage discrimination?" April 3.)

Comments
Loading

73°