Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
News Opinion Readers Respond

Doubly troubled by Gallaudet employee's suspension

After reading "Gallaudet official suspended for signing anti-same-sex marriage petition" (Oct. 11) I was troubled on two fronts.

First, if Angela McCaskill signed a political petition in her own time and made no overt political stance in the workplace, then her rights are being violated by the university. It's pure and simple. Regardless of how inane one may find her politics to be, she's entitled to believe anything for any reason and to participate in our democracy accordingly.

My second point of contention, and one I find substantially more troubling, is the subversive nature of many of those who are opposed to marriage equality, most noticeably Maryland Marriage Alliance's Executive Director Derek McCoy, who is quoted in this article. As was to be expected, he claims that religious liberty is under attack. This tired tactic is a calculated and conscious effort to mislead voters and direct them down a path of religion-fueled hysteria.

A portion of Question 6 reads, "protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith." This is an explicit protection of religion!

As one can plainly see, the law would simply grant equal civil rights to same sex couples. This proves that the righteous and pious Mr. McCoy is in direct violation of another tenet he most certainly holds dear: the 9th Commandment, which reads, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor," or voter, in this case. Furthermore, such arguments based in perverse religiosity should alarm all of us as members of a thoughtful, free-thinking society. We, as Americans, are entitled to worship Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Punxsutawney Phil, or no god at all. But one's intensely private and personal decision about their faith, or lack thereof, has no place in public policy making.

Finally, I can say with supreme confidence that I made no conscious choice to fall in love with and marry my wife. To claim that a person can choose whom they love violates the very principle of the emotion. It seems that those of an obstinate religious persuasion should refocus their time and effort on combating poverty, spousal abuse (a reality that manifests itself only in the "infallible" confines of traditional marriage, by the way), or other problems with real human victims, instead of obsessing to an insane degree over the private sexual behavior of consenting, law-abiding adults. Affirming Question 6 is our moral responsibility; one that I fear is lost on many others for less-than-rational reasons.

Patrick G. Muth, Bowleys Quarters

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Gallaudet opposes diversity in opinions

    Gallaudet University President T. Alan Hurwitz's decision to suspend the university's chief diversity officer for signing a democratic initiative to put same-sex marriage on Maryland's ballot violates her right to free speech and diversity itself ("Gallaudet official suspended for signing anti-gay...

  • How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    As a long-time civics teacher I follow the Supreme Court's decisions very carefully. I have long admired Justice Anthony Kennedy because he is the swing vote on the court and his decisions are often unpredictable.

  • 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...

  • 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 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 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.)