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, BaltimoreCopyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times