Don't deny some Marylanders the right to marry

I am a Roman Catholic, and I will be voting for Question 6 on the Maryland ballot on Tuesday. I am voting for this referendum because I believe my family member, Mike, and his partner, Ron, have as much right to marry as I have. I am voting for this referendum because I believe my friend, Jen, and her wife have as much right to be married as I am. I have been happily married to my husband for 26 years.

I am also a mental health counselor who counsels lesbian and gay clients as well as straight clients. The lesbians and gays whom I counsel want to be treated fairly and equally along with the rest of our citizens in Maryland.

For those of you who are considering voting against this referendum, stop and remember when you fell in love and married the man or woman with whom you were in love. What if the state had not allowed you to get married? How would you have felt about a state law forbidding you to marry the man or woman you love?

Everyone deserves to be treated equally under civil law. Question 6 in no way takes away our freedom of religion nor does it take away the freedom of clergy to refuse to marry two people. This referendum is about civil law, not church or other religious laws governing other faith communities.

Ann Penick, LaPlata

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The 'war for gay rights' has no winners or losers

    The 'war for gay rights' has no winners or losers

    Columnist Jonah Goldberg's recent commentary about Indiana's Religious Freedom and Restoration Act missed the point ("How do 'religious freedom' acts encourage discrimination?" April 3).

  • 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").

  • The struggle for gay rights isn't over

    The struggle for gay rights isn't over

    The reasoning behind the "righteous outrage" that commentator Jonah Goldberg uses to describe "know-nothings of every stripe" who are serious about protecting civil rights is twisted at best ("How do 'religious freedom' acts encourage discrimination?" April 3.)

  • Selective reading of Leviticus won't justify bigotry

    Letter writer Adam Goldfinger objected to Eddie Zipperer's references to Leviticus and states that he does indeed try to follow the laws in this book ("Yes, some people do follow the bible to the letter," April 3). I find myself wondering how many people Mr. Goldfinger has personally stoned to...

  • 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...

  • 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 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...

Comments
Loading