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

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Marriage equality is civil right

Eric Lee misses the point of Question 6 in his commentary on same-sex marriage ("Protecting marriage isn't about hate," Oct. 2). His analogy of the vegetarian restaurant is particularly off the mark. If his favorite vegetarian restaurant starts serving hamburgers, he is under no obligation to buy or eat them.

A more fit analogy for Question 6 would be a restaurant in 1960 allowing a black couple to sit at a table with white people. Or, 10 years ago, a restaurant moving your favorite table and adding a wheelchair ramp to allow a disabled person the same right to share a meal.

Question 6 is about allowing the citizens of Maryland to enjoy the legal, government-recognized institution of marriage. It has no effect on one's God or religion and how they define a religious marriage.

One of the longest and most stable relationships in my extended family is a same-sex union. My cousin and her partner are raising three wonderful kids who benefit from a stable, committed relationship that has all the "special qualities" and "unique gifts" Mr. Lee mistakenly credits only to heterosexual couples. This great family is always welcome at my table.

Mr. Lee does get this right, however: "Men and women are equal," and the government recognizes and protects that equality. It's time we invite all consenting adults to enjoy equal seating at the table of marriage.

William Feustle, Baldwin

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

75°