Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

O'Malley's support of gay marriage represents a rejection of Catholic teaching

Regarding Governor O'Malley's recent remarks crediting his Catholic upbringing for his effort to redefine marriage, the church does indeed teach that every human being is made in the likeness of God and therefore should be treated with love and respect. However, that does require that people's every action be affirmed.

The Catholic church teaches that God made humans male and female, each with a gift of sexuality tailored to gender. In God's beautiful design, that gift is exchanged in the marital act between a married man and a woman, an act that expresses a complete giving of self and can bring forth new life. The church acknowledges that people of the same sex can have caring and abiding friendships and commitments to each other, but it teaches that those relationships are not the proper context for sexual relations and cannot be the basis for a marriage.

As a lawyer, the governor is surely aware that the Maryland Appeals Court and theU.S. Supreme Courthave found that the only reason the state has an interest in providing legal status and benefits for married couples is that the marriage of a man and a woman is the procreative unit for society and the optimum environment for rearing children. If biology is removed from the definition of marriage, there is no reason for the state to even be involved in marriages.

Governor O'Malley says he supports gay marriage for the benefit of children. Traditional marriage attaches biological fathers and mothers to children and provides the most stable environment in which to rear them. It is written on the human heart to want to know, love and be known and loved by one's natural father and mother.

Unfortunately, that cannot always be the case. However, why would the state want to promote a situation in which children are intentionally deprived of one of their natural parents? Is that an optimum environment for children? How is that in the state's interest?

If the governor's intention is to validate the irregular family situations these children find themselves in, then what about the children of polygamous groups? Should their situations be legally recognized by the state as well? Will the governor also support the "triple-parenting" movement growing in jurisdictions that have redefined marriage to accommodate same-sex unions?

Here the sperm donor for a lesbian couple would also like to be involved as a parent for the child, so the child can have one father and two mother parents. Things can get complicated for the child rather quickly. The meaning of "marriage" can become increasingly muddled once biology and the exclusivity of one man and one woman is removed.

The governor certainly has a right to his opinion. But he should have the courage to stand up and say it is an opinion based on rejection of Catholic teaching and Maryland jurisprudence.

Lynda Kouroupis, Ellicott City

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

  • 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").

  • 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...

  • 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 federal...

  • 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.

  • 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...

  • 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).

Comments
Loading

63°