David writes to the Baltimore Sun:
... It will bog down the legislative agenda unnecessarily when we have serious issues to address in our state.
We can't afford it. Marriage "fairness" is nothing more than agitating for benefits that the institution of marriage encourages.
Same-sex marriage has been defeated by the people in every state where the issue has gone to the ballot box, and passing the bill will undoubtedly awaken a sleeping giant — the people of Maryland.
The only reason New York allowed same sex marriage is because a few elected officials were turned with money. In Iowa, where liberal judges overturned the people's will to grant same sex marriage, they were promptly voted out of office.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled against redefining marriage in 2004, and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller has come out opposing the issue in a year when the governor, the leader of his political party, says it is his signature issue.
Redefining marriage would create untold consequences to hundreds of other laws that depend on marriage status.
Legislators might have more success advocating benefits for civil unions instead. Societies everywhere reject same sex marriage. How are we so smart to overrule what people everywhere else know?
11 Comments
It's great to see Marylanders speaking out!
Once again, there is an absolute shortage of specific examples as reasons to oppose SSM in this article. If the sky is falling tell us what will be the result.
My wife asked me the other night why there were so many Brits hosting TV shows in the US, e.g., Piers Morgan, Simon Cowell, etc.... I changed the Channel to the Bravo network where they were playing an ad for "Brad, Brad World," and I said "Because THIS is what had become of American men."
So, one might not think that the sky is falling merely because boys marrying boys leads to indoctrination of homosexuality in schools. But does anyone think that this nation can survive when men are encourage to act effeminate and pair up with other effeminate men?
This was actually a brillant written letter to the editer by a concerned Maryland citizen who showed bravery in writing such an article. He made great valid points that the opposing side could not refute so they went on the personal attack again.
John Noe - What is with the writer's 1st point, "We can't afford it"? We all know times are tough and states are having a tough time meeting their expenses. But why should gay people be singled out? On another point, the NY legislator boldly voted marriage equality as some Republican lawmakers were convinced they should vote with their hearts and not the party line and threats of loss of money and primary challenges. Thank God for the 4 brave Republican State Senators. I sent each one a personal email thanking them for standing up for justice back in June.
You're losing. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mhTTeqYAyuw/TyflhKYYLbI/AAAAAAABPwQ/opE3Lrpjs_Y/s1600/MarylandPoll.jpg
Bobby,your side is in the wrong no matter how many fall for its false premises.
Resist, you guys are really getting creative with the talking points.
So the reason Brits like Simon, Piers and Craig Ferguson have jobs in the States is because Americans are too gay? Can't say I've ever heard that before.
Layne -
The post wasn't about Brits; it was about the feminization of American men. But your focusing on the Brits is what you and your ilk do: you twist the intended meaning of things to confuse and mock.
And you comment about how 2 guys getting married will have no effect on my marriage, but neglect to address the fact that 2 guys getting married changes the definition of a thousands-year-old institution that will have effects on all of society that we will not begin to see until it is too late to reverse them in any reasonable time frame.
It doesn't matter what the polls say. SS"M" will still loose referendums.
If poster #5 is so confident that his side would win then why does his side not allow the people to vote.