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

Same-sex marriage — helps some, hurts none

Try as I might — and I really have tried because I've wanted to see this issue from the other side — I just don't understand how anyone's marriage, much less a same-sex one, threatens anyone else's marriage, anyone else's way of life, anyone else's family, or anyone else's religion.

And let's get one thing out of the way: Same-sex couples are not trying to force religious faiths to make the sacrament of marriage available to them. They are petitioning the government to recognize the validity of same-sex unions and accord them the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. That's it. That recognition doesn't come with the right to have the union recognized in or by any religious faith; if your church is marrying same-sex couples, and you don't like that, take it up with them, not the state.

We live in a time when more than half of all so-called traditional marriages end in divorce, where millions of children live in single-parent homes, or shuttle between custodial parents. This is a country where non-custodial parents fail on a regular basis to provide for the support of the children they brought into the world within traditional marriages.

And speaking of children, if opponents of same-sex marriage want to make the argument that traditional marriage is all about the children and family, they need to open a new branch of opposition because there are a lot of people getting married today who are either too old to have children or have chosen not to have them. Hey, it might even dovetail nicely with the opposition to abortion — you know, "unless you have that child, we're going to invalidate your marriage." Sounds far-fetched, but I can almost see the wheels turning in some people's heads. Pretty sure Todd Akin would love it.

Perhaps those who are devoting so much time, energy and money fighting against the right of same-sex couples to have legally-recognized unions would be better served by spending more time and energy on their own marriages, their own families, their own lives; they might end up better people for it, and might even recognize that the real threats to marriage do not come from other people's marriages.

So, it's pretty much come down to this for me — and I say this as a woman married to a man for 32 years, with whom I have two children — if you don't believe in same-sex relationships or unions or marriages, don't have one. Yes, it really is that simple. If you're a person of faith, maybe it's time you trusted your deity of choice enough to leave it in His hands. And whether you are or you aren't, you might want to consider that some day, it could be your basic rights and privileges that come up for a vote by people who don't see things as you do. And before you tell me the issue of same-sex unions is different, I'd like to be on the record as saying, "no, it's really not."

Anne G. Schoonmaker, Sparks

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...

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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...

  • 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...

Comments
Loading
77°