Summer Savings! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
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
  • 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.)

  • 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...

  • Get states out of the marriage business

    Get states out of the marriage business

    In light of the recent Supreme Court on same sex marriage being protected under the Constitution ("Freedom to marry," June 27), there is now a movement afoot in Montana by a Mormon, Nathan Collier, who is legally married to Vicki, to be allowed to marry his second wife, Christine. Many have predicted...

  • 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...