Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Ehrlich ignores evolution of marriage

FamilyMarriageChristianitySame-Sex MarriageRoman CatholicismRobert L. Ehrlich Jr.

In his column against gay marriage,Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.once again demonstrates why he is not the true heir and successor to Ron Smith ("Drawing a line at same-sex marriage," April 15). Mr. Smith and his keen intellect pursued truth whether it agreed with his prior beliefs or not while Mr. Ehrlich has shown again that he couches partisan viewpoints in intellectual language to disguise the truth.

There is, indeed, a likely coalition against the gay marriage act. Leaders in my own faith, the Catholic Church, are drumming up a bandwagon to get signatures for referendum against the act. I won't be signing it. Opponents all blindly and stubbornly ignore the fact that we are at this point recognizing the validity of gay marriage not in spite of Christian beliefs, but because of them.

There has already been a long evolution of marriage. Contrary to Mr. Ehrlich, Catholic bishops, and preachers who legislate, the word, "marriage," today doesn't mean at all the same thing it has meant through history. In the pre-Christian Greek world, marriage between a man and a woman was a social duty. This was not uncommon in the Jewish scriptures, too. A large part of marriage was economic and political: Young women were often married off to older established men to get them out of their families, to see that their economic future was assured, and often to cement ties or alliances between families, tribes, city-states and nations. Our current understanding of love between two people as a basis of marriage is part of the evolution of marriage, and a more modern one at that. Love stories such as the Song of Solomon and Hosea were remarkable because of their exceptionality, not their commonality.

Christianity is largely responsible for the development of the notion of sacrificial love between two marriage partners, a mirroring of the love of God for his people. Even as late as the middle ages, marriages were often arranged, and it took a good deal of preaching from religious leaders to decry the practice. Romeo and Juliet were remarkable for their love because otherwise they would likely have been forced to marry others to provide an extra alliance to their own warring families.

Today, we have already completely transformed the concept of marriage to a merging of two individuals based on a higher and completely sacrificial love to each other. The fact that up until now that arrangement was generally recognized as heterosexual is only one step along the very same path to the highest spiritual, democratic and humanistic attitude that started 2,000 years ago. The endorsement of gay marriage doesn't challenge our Christian heritage, it confirms it.

Mr. Ehrlich, and others like him, don't get that. You actually have to be open to truth to get it.

Samuel Castiglione, Randallstown

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
FamilyMarriageChristianitySame-Sex MarriageRoman CatholicismRobert L. Ehrlich Jr.
  • Ehrlich rants an embarrassment
    Ehrlich rants an embarrassment

    Not quite 10 years ago when I moved to Baltimore from a D.C. suburb, I made the decision to switch from The Washington Post to The Baltimore Sun for my daily news read. Ever since, I have had the paper delivered to my home on a daily basis. Even as it has gone down hill in content over that...

  • American values under Obama
    American values under Obama

    Two columns ago, I passed on a series of political observations from the heartland. Today, a snapshot of American values and viewpoints a decade and a half into the "new" millennium.

  • Ehrlich mistaken on tax burden
    Ehrlich mistaken on tax burden

    Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. does not look at the big picture. Is this because he is not interested in giving a fair presentation? In his most recent column (tax bill for government at all levels.

  • What Obama should have said
    What Obama should have said

    Here is what President Barack Obama should have said when he addressed the American people after his party's massive losses in Tuesday's election:

  • Obamacare is a 'varsity stinker'
    Obamacare is a 'varsity stinker'

    OK, I can't help myself. Over the past three years, I have written at least a dozen columns critical of Obamacare (a.k.a. The "Affordable Care Act") in this space and devoted an entire chapter to the topic in my book "America: Hope for Change."

  • Hillary all over again
    Hillary all over again

    With the exception of President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is the most recognized American politician of this era. Today, she is far and away the Democratic front runner for president. Many believe she is the odds on favorite to win it all — a view supported by a variety of public...

  • Middle class value claims are a 'joke' [Commentary]
    Middle class value claims are a 'joke' [Commentary]

    It's the political season, which explains another column of "Things That Bug Me." Herewith my latest list for your consideration:

  • Respect the power of the pardon [Commentary]
    Respect the power of the pardon [Commentary]

    "[O]ne man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men."

Comments
Loading