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

Arguments against same-sex marriage are based on myths

On Oct. 2, two writers to The Sun published articles supporting their position against Question 6, the ballot measure dealing with same-sex marriage ("Catholic on marriage equality: Right sentiment, wrong conclusion" and "Opposing gay marriage: It's not about hate").

As someone who was educated for 16 years in Roman Catholic schools, I feel strongly that the very foundation of their arguments, the definition of traditional marriage, is a myth.

First, traditionally marriage was not between one man and one woman. It was one man and multiple women.

Second, traditionally marriages were not based in loving relationships between a man and woman but were arranged affairs usually connected to property rights.

Third, one of the writers, Eric Lee, posits that men and women are equal. That may be the case in the latter part of the 20th century and now in the 21st century, but it certainly was not the case in traditional marriages. Women were considered the property of their husbands and were not allowed to own property. Husbands were even allowed to beat their wives to ensure they would obey their husband.

Fourth, up to the 1960s it was illegal for individuals of different races to marry. The argument for these laws was the protection of traditional marriage. Is this the same traditional marriage that these writers support?

Mr. Lee's makes the analogy of the vegetarian restaurant owner adding meat to his menu but still calling his place of business vegetarian. It is that individual's right to define his business any way he wishes. If Mr. Lee does not like it he can simply take his patronage elsewhere. The Marriage Equality Act does not force any church or individual to accept marriages between gays and lesbians. The act does in fact remove them from second class citizenship and acknowledges their right to be in a loving committed relationship and have the same legal protections as all other citizens.

Mr. Lee states that there is no hate in his heart for gays and lesbians. That may very well be the truth. Only Mr. Lee knows. However the point that Mr. Lee avoids in his flowery language is the fact that he argues for and promotes second class citizenship for gays and lesbians. By relegating human beings to second class citizens, Mr. Lee establishes that it is quite all right to discriminate against them and that in turn legitimizes a hateful attitude toward the population being discriminated against. So even if Mr. Lee does not hate gays and lesbians, he certainly is working to create an environment where it is OK to hate people for their sexual orientation.

In fact on two occasions he uses the word good or goodness to define his "traditional" marriage. And although he does not state it directly, the opposite of good and goodness is evil or evil-ness. Therefore his position is one that a union between loving gays and lesbians is in and of itself an evil act. Defining someone's actions as evil is as close to hating them as one can get without using the word hate.

A letter writer, Stanley J. Glinka, supports the civil union for gays and lesbians. So I do not understand his lack of support for Question 6. The law does not force any church to marry gays and lesbians. It is up to the congregation and minister whether they will treat gays and lesbians as they would want to be treated themselves.

Michael Seipp

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.