Blog: 77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage

77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage

When I was growing up, I never thought we'd actually be having a vigorous debate, much less a vote, over what marriage is and isn't.

But here we are, going into Tuesday's election, with our very own ballot measure: Question 6 upholds the new law that marriage is any two people; a vote against protects current law that marriage is one man, one woman. The outcome of whether or not marriage will be redefined is anybody's guess.

The debate this year has been anything but civil following a coercive series of events that began in the legislature, spearheaded by our own governor.  Just two highlights (and I'll skip the fact that the governor's wife, a sitting judge, called same sex marriage opponents "cowards.") Did you hear about the 14-year old Maryland resident who was the victim of a harassing website and death threats after she asked the General Assembly not to redefine marriage? 'Nuf said.

Then this fall, a Gallaudet University administrator lost her job for signing a petition that allows Maryland citizens to decide the definition of marriage (and after a month she still hasn't been reinstated.) This was their Chief Officer of Diversity, too - what an oxymoron!

The obvious conclusion: the civil and religious rights of all Marylanders are at risk if they disagree with this law. So the option is to be bullied into silence or disagree at your own peril.  Yes, I know, there are lukewarm protections for pastors but not for individuals or business owners that may not want to participate in same sex weddings. That's not the America I grew up in, nor did Patch readers. So I share these 77 common sense reasons to protect natural marriage for your consideration because the issue is far more complicated than most realize. We can support our gay and lesbian friends without redefining marriage. Maryland has a very liberal domestic partnership law which provides a host of medical and other insurance benefits. More facts here...

Here are a few points for starters, and if you're interested, you can follow the link below:

The issue is not about equality, but about redefining marriage away from its historical and inherent meaning.

The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

We can see the importance of this purpose by taking the perspective of the child: What is owed to the child? Unlike adults, the child does not need autonomy or independence.

The child is entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought him into being. Therefore, the child has a legitimate interest in the stability of his parents’ union. 

Click Here to read all 77 reasons.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jim Kunz November 05, 2012 at 01:59 PM
"When I was growing up, I never thought we'd actually be having a vigorous debate, much less a vote, over what marriage is and isn't." I don't know when you grew up, but in the 50s and 60s there was also a vigorous debate over what marriage was and wasn't. Reasons similar to these were cited against the effort to "redefine" marriage, at the time restricted to one man/one woman of the same race.
Native November 05, 2012 at 04:58 PM
Good article, Amy! You're 100% right!
ESPinCC November 07, 2012 at 05:26 PM
Wow, that is easily the most asinine pamphlet I've ever wasted my time reading. Many of the reasons aren't reasons at all, just half formed thoughts, and the whole thing is riddled with factual and logical errors. So glad the majority of people in this state are smarter than this, and made the right decision when voting on Question 6!
Amy M. Gilford November 07, 2012 at 06:15 PM
@Native, thank you. @ESPinCC...you mean, in your opinion, of course. When I post docs I assume a minimum of 5th grade competency. I assume that people will think with their heads and not just pure emotion. I have no doubt that most Marylanders do not think that marriage should be redefined. You can make it legal, but you can't make it right. I do believe that many have concerns that are wrapped up in the issue of semantics: fairness, equality, etc. But with a 7 to 1 spending advantage due to corporate support, a first, a sitting governor supporting the measure, one party backing it, the other party mum, the NAACP taking a position, and an ad campaign which didn't show gay couples but targeted and divided the African American community, 6 backers won the day, but not the war. I think once ppl see the reality of ssm going beyond the altar and altering the society, the pendulum will swing back.
ESPinCC November 07, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Perhaps you need to reassess your own level of competency if you actually think that document has facts and logic behind it, and that the entire premise of those arguments isn't rooted in religious beliefs. I think a basic culture shift is going on (and rightfully so), as demonstrated by the passing of similar measures in other states during this election. You can stick your head in the sand and try to dismiss it, but the world will just move on without ya.
Howard Smith November 10, 2012 at 12:50 AM
OK - so the proponents of same sex marriage were organized and well financed. Also the Hispanics who are overwhelmingly Catholic and pro-traditional family were courted to vote for same sex marriage in exchange for support on insate tuition. Even so this question only passed by only four points. I wonder how many people who voted for question six were like my elderly parents who did not understand that the term "cilvil" marriage WAS MARRIAGE. I had to piont out to them that "civil" marriage was marriage just like their daughter (my sister) got married to a man at the courthouse. Once they understood what the term "civil" meant they understood that they were against question six. Lets face it, how people choose to have sex is not a civil right and passing question six only coarsens society and cheapens real marriage. There was no reason to change what has worked for society for 1000s of years. Oh well as for people that did not understand the term civil, if everyone were smart, there would be no liberals.
Howard Smith November 10, 2012 at 01:15 AM
So how is a debate over whether a man AND woman can marry similar to the complete redefinition of the word marriage? Don't talk about civil rights, no one has any special rights based on how they choose to have sex and besides, we are talking about the definition of the word "marriage". Do not mention the 14th amendment because every state has laws concerning who can not get married. If you think that under the 14th amendment it is still legal for a state to say that first cousins can not marry, (26 states say they can and 24 states say they can't) then you are saying that states have the right to limit who can marry. In any case getting to your attempt to define this as a civil rights issue, in the 50s and 60s there was never any question about the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman.
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 01:48 AM
Howard, perhaps you need to go back and educate yourself about the history of marriage BEFORE the 50's and 60's. The word/concept has existed long before the Catholic/Christian/Protestant religions (even back to per-organized religions), and only subset of religions has declared SSM as inappropriate or wrong. It is nothing but pride and arrogance to claim that the Catholics/Christians/Protestants own and defined the word, and their definition is the correct one.
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 01:59 AM
Get a friggin' clue, man. Civil marriage does not afford the married couple the same set of benefits and rights as the generic "marriage" - they are completely different legal definitions that result in completely different legal outcomes in the courts. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/articles/family-law/federal/the-difference-between-marriage-and-civil-uni.html
Howard Smith November 10, 2012 at 03:23 AM
Dear ESPinCC: In my response to Jim Kunz, I was reponding to his attempt to equate gays wanting to be married with the civil rights struggle of the 50s and 60s. I really do not care how some primitive tribe in Borneo may have defined marriage. We live in the US. People of the same sex needing to make some protest against the norms and mores of society is not a civil rights issue. I really do not care how you choose to have sex, just do not try to further erode society by flaunting your choice and do not pretend that your sex act should be blessed my marriage. If as you say civil marriage is not marriage - DO NOT USE THE WORD MARRIAGE and we will all be happy. Do not force your sexual choices on us and do not force us to pretend it is normal by blessing your choice with marriage.
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 03:30 AM
And once again I suggest you go get yourself educated. It was far more than a "primitive tribe in Borneo" that supported SSM. Still waiting for any sort of valid argument on how SSM "erodes" society. And still waiting for any valid argument that your definition of marriage is the one and only and valid one. Do not force your sexual choices on anyone else. And do not force us to pretend your bigoted and self-righteous beliefs is the norm.
Howard Smith November 10, 2012 at 03:46 AM
Dear ESPinCC: What country and what century do you live in? I am using the definition of marriage that has existed in western civilization for thousands of years up to present day USA. To pretend that any other definition of marriage is applicable or to philosophize about what people did in some other time and place is absurd. Pretending that same sex marriage is normal is to pretend that homosexuality is normal. Blessing the gay sex act with marriage is the utimate acceptance of this collapse of gender rolls. What two adults choose to do in private is fine, I do not understand why they choose to do it but... But you are someone that dismisses the importance of traditional geder rolls and no one is going to change your mind. All I know is that when I see a family - a man, woman and children - I feel good. When I see men in buttless chaps at a gay pride rally I feel quesy.
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 03:52 AM
I'm living in the current century. Clearly you are not. Please explain why homosexuality is not "normal", and how you define "normal". Also explain the "importance" of traditional gender roles. I feel good when I see any couple in a loving relationship. Sad that you can't do the same. Also sad that you would support prejudice and discrimination just because something makes you feel "queasy". That's an awfully selfish, arrogant, and un-Christian way of looking at life.
Howard Smith November 10, 2012 at 03:58 AM
Dear ESPINCC: I just caught the "do not force my sexual choices on anyone else" part of your comment. Is it not a bit much to say that the person (ME) whose sexual practices are the same as at least 97% of society is forceing his preferences on anyone. Sort of like me forcing that thief or that murderer not steal or kill. I am glad that you admit that homosexuality is a choice though. Afterall if it really were genetic it would have become extinct by now since by definition gays can not reproduce. This should be especially true now since gays increasingly do not have to live a lie anymore. So what are we worried about. If it is genetic it will be gone in one maybe two generaations tops. But that's right, we have agreed that it is a choice. Good night
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 03:59 AM
Also, please explain why we are allowed to discriminate against something that isn't "normal".
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 04:01 AM
I do not and have not acknowledged that homosexuality is a choice. Please do not put words in my mouth. The majority once believed the earth was flat, and they were proven wrong. The majority once believed that interracial relationships were wrong, and they were proven wrong. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make the right.
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 04:03 AM
I'd also like to point out that you didn't bother to answer or address any of my previous points, which just goes to show that you don't have any answers - you're just content to live with and propagate your prejudice and ignorance, and not have any real conversation about the issue. Again, sad to see. Don't know how you can sleep well at night.
ESPinCC November 10, 2012 at 04:05 AM
I'd also like to point out how you misquoted me. I said "do not force YOUR sexual choices on anyone else", not "MY sexual choices". Nice attempt to falsely represent your opponent. Just shows your intellectual dishonesty.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness November 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM
First: "I think once ppl see the reality of ssm going beyond the altar and altering the society, the pendulum will swing back." Second: "I assume that people will think with their heads and not just pure emotion." Talk about a contradiction. Look at the data. Look at the trends. This isn't a pendulum it's the forward movement of progress. You are correct: This will change society. It will change society the way allowing women to vote changed society; the way allowing Blacks in the military and gays in the military changed society. For the better. The language used here by the anti-ssm people is that of the classic bully. You think it's ok to say the most divisive, mean and demeaning things and then when times change, when laws change, you become a victim. You release a single video about a girl being bullied for her beliefs. If it happened it's wrong. But all bullying is wrong. And you never, ever speak to that. And surely gays have been bullied in the most violent and demeaning ways for decades and centuries. On that you seem silent. This issue is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's a fundamentally American issue, a truly conservative issue. Anti-ssm people first said this issue should not be decided by the courts. Let legislators make laws to decide. When legislators made laws to decide it the anti crowd said let's vote on it. When people vote on it the anti people say the vote didn't really reflect the truth? What else is there?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness November 10, 2012 at 01:19 PM
What else is there? Of course the answer to that, according the anti crowd, is the greater Truth. And that's ok. But that's much different than the law of the land and the constitution of the country, a constitution which, I might add, guarantees the freedom of religion, the freedom to believe as one wishes. So you can have Truth, as you define it. But you can't have a government that is a theocracy.
Howard Smith November 10, 2012 at 06:31 PM
You are right gay marriage is now the law of the land in Maryland. That does not make it right, but it is the law of the land. And congratulations on confusing, coercing, tricking or whatever enough blacks and hispanics into voting for this question. Blcaks and hispanics two groups who are more opposed to gay marriage than the population as a whole is opposed. No one is talking about a theocracacy. Even without God there is right and wrong. Bottom line is that Maryland has blessed perversion and trying to convince you all that grass is green and the sky is blue would be about as sucessful as convincing any anti social individual that they are wrong. But it is the law of the land here in Maryland and congratulations on giving the 97%+ of us even more reason to fear and dislike you.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness November 10, 2012 at 07:38 PM
If it were 97% + then 52 % of the people would not have voted in support of the law. Your fears and dislikes are your own and those in the minority. And that minority is growing ever smaller by the day. That's a fact. As for the notion that Blacks and Hispanics were tricked or coerced on this issue...really? Were they tricked into supporting President Obama, too? This is absurd. Are you suggesting that they aren't capable of thinking and voting for themselves? Really?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness November 10, 2012 at 07:59 PM
Also, if there is a right and wrong without God, as you suggest, where does that sense of right and wrong come from? This is an interesting idea you have here. I always thought the basis for opposing gay marriage or homosexual rights was the Bible. You seem to be saying something different. Are you saying there is a philosophical basis for it? A legal one? From where are getting the authority to say what is right and what is wrong? What is giving you the power to say this? The authority to say this?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness November 10, 2012 at 08:21 PM
And, finally, here's the real reason why 6 was successful: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-olson/maryland-gay-marriage_b_2094675.html


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something