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

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Marriage's legal protections ought to be available to all

This weekend, I happened to attend two solemn and sacred ceremonies filled with piety, words of the Lord and beautiful music. The first was a memorial for an elderly gentleman whose grieving widow was comforted by the ritual and dignity, the support of family, friends and neighbors, and knowledge that her beloved now rested with God. The second was the wedding of a young couple, starting their married lives similarly blessed and supported. The bride's ordained grandfather officiated, having them state their vows , including "till death part us" and reminding us all that according to God's holy ordinance, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

These two contrasting yet linked ceremonies are beautiful and ancient rituals which, as powerful and sincere as they are, are not legal events by themselves. Even though they are performed under God's laws, Maryland requires that a legal document be signed — a death certificate, a marriage license. The state also requires we register the birth of a child, obtain a driver's license to drive, sign a contract to buy a property, or in the event that a marriage fails, allows us to obtain a divorce. These are all legal proceedings that structure, strengthen and maintain our society.

Does the legal marriage contract diminish the faithfulness or solemnity of a religious wedding? Not at all. The signed marriage contract legally provides a couple rights of inheritance, their children's guardianship, property ownership and social recognition. If, by fault or need, they later obtain a divorce, it is the legal contract with the state that also governs and protects that decision. Even though those sacred vows were made, the divorce will be granted because it is the legal document that prevails.

Most of us no longer live in a society where marriages are arranged as a commercial enterprise, and we freely choose whom we love and marry. Why then are gay and lesbian couples who are no less committed to each other than that young couple mentioned, not allowed to register their union legally, to protect their property, children or end of life choices? Does it diminish my marriage, or make my children unlikely to marry for love because I have a gay brother-in-law or lesbian neighbors? Of course not, unless my children (or yours) happen to be gay and this state does not pass this law of fundamental rights. Voting for Question 6 is the respectful way to treat others as we wish to be treated.

Jo Marvan, Towson

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • 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 '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 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...

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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...

  • 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...