As of today, I have not seen any positive response to Peter Sprigg's commentary on marriage ("Same-sex marriage is contrary to the public interest," Feb. 2) in the Baltimore Sun. Among those responding to his article, one letter ("If the public purpose of marriage is children, we need to change a lot of laws,"http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-marriage-law-letter-20110203%2C0%2C6293825.story Feb. 3), mentions that Mr. Sprigg insists "that marriage is only about making and raising babies in the natural, God-ordained way." Nowhere did I see any mention of God or religion. I believe what Mr. Sprigg was trying to get across is the natural order of life. When the Earth was created, as history records, after the light and dark, etc., then came the animals, one male and one female of each type. Then came the first two human beings, first male then female. Without this equation the human race would not have continued.

About marriage, love does come first in most cases, but as far as children are concerned they have the right to a father and a mother. Our society is becoming one of, if you don't like something, change the law, even as far as changing the Constitution! This makes a nation become very unstable.

Closing, I would say I am for civil unions (definitely not marriage). Those homosexuals that are fighting to change marriage should be spending their time on how to have laws created for a civil union to work for the benefits they seek.

Kathy Christian, Baltimore