Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

Mayor wrong to marry gay couples

It was extremely disappointing to read in The Sun that Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is planning to preside over same-sex marriages on June 16 here in Baltimore ("Mayor will preside over mass wedding of gay couples," May 20). I, and many others, believe her decision to do so speaks volumes about her understanding — or lack of understanding — of the moral issues surrounding same-sex marriages.

As a Christian and trusted political official, she must know the devastating long-range effects of such actions. Much worse is the violation of what is and has always been a sacred institution. While the mayor is indeed entitled to her own opinions, she is not entitled as mayor to make statements or do anything that would be condescending or speak for the people of Baltimore as if they were in agreement. Obviously, while her actions are a matter of prophecy, the church has a responsibility to speak out and discourage such behavior. Notwithstanding, this is not a matter of whose straight or gay, but a redefining of the sacredness of marriage which is a very serious challenge to biblical truth and our spiritual health as a nation.

It is unthinkable as well as unforgivable for this mayor to advocate such marriages even if only for political acceptance. It is wrong, unrighteous, and unacceptable. It is certainly a bold example of biblical defiance in an effort to recreate God and His word. However, because I know she is a caring person who tries to represent all the citizens of Baltimore, this is one issue she should have left to those individual persuasions and not shared her own. Maybe, just maybe, she should rethink her decision and instead champion those issues that will strengthen the moral conduct of our city.

Finally, while I am sure the mayor is a very decent and intelligent person, I am equally sure she is confused. The issue is not simply same-sex marriages but about our condemnation as a people and divine creation. Perhaps a conversation with Gov. Martin O'Malley on the subject wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Rev. Lynwood H. Leverette Sr., Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • 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...

  • A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]
    A speed bump for marriage equality [Editorial]

    Our view: Decision upholding Louisiana's ban on gay marriage is an outlier but an instructive one as the issue heads to the Supreme Court

  • Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]
    Jesus didn't condone marriage equality [Letter]

    Madeleine Mysko's recent commentary advised that 645 commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA will vote later this month whether to accept marriage equality for the LGBTQ community ("Presbyterians to vote on marriage equality," June 6).

  • The triumph of fairness [Editorial]
    The triumph of fairness [Editorial]

    Our view: Failure to put Maryland's transgender rights law on the ballot despite trumped-up fears should be a source of pride

  • Opposing gay rights doesn't make you a hater [Letter]

    According to Tom Schaller's column ("Hate if you must, just don't act on it," March 5), any American who does not subscribe to Mr. Schaller's particular credo on the law and homosexuality is a hater. Such blanket condemnation and name-calling are more appropriate to a bigot than an academic.

  • Despite veto, Arizona still looks bad [Letter]
    Despite veto, Arizona still looks bad [Letter]

    Just when I think nothing else outrageous can be done in the name of religious freedom, along comes the Arizona bill allowing business owners the legal right to refuse service to gays and others on the basis of said freedom.

Comments
Loading