Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
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
  • 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...