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