A vote for Question 6 is a vote to end discrimination

Like everyone I know, I am planning to vote this November for Question 6 to legalize same-sex marriages in Maryland. The law will rectify an unfair situation which, if it were not so ugly in its discrimination, would almost be humorous.

It was all right for Mickey Rooney or Elizabeth Taylor to get married as many times as they wanted, but two males or two females don't have that right.

Anyone who votes against marriage equality probably is unaware of the institution's history. Men once took wives who virtually had no rights in a patriarchal society. And people of different races were forbidden to marry.

I believe in love, and if two people are in love they should have the right to marry in Maryland.

So as a vegetarian and environmentalist, I was astonished by the lack of logic in a recent commentary opposing same-sex unions ("Protecting marriage isn't about hate," Oct. 2). The writer, a self-described "vegetarian" who lives "in a solar house," tries to argue that opposition to marriage equality isn't rooted in bias.

His argument really gets into the weeds with the false analogy between a vegetarian who eats meat and a person who marries a partner of the same sex. Marriage equality doesn't redefine marriage, it simply ends an unlawful discrimination. Similarly, a person who gets a divorce or doesn't marry has no effect on anyone else's marriage.

There are no legitimate arguments against marriage equality. Discrimination has long been part of this country's core, and good people have always come together to end discrimination in all its many forms. The fight for marriage equality is just the latest example of that.

Max Obuszewski, Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
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...

  • 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").

  • 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

    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.

  • 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...

Comments
Loading