"Majority favors legalized unions" | Baltimore Sun

In a poll of Maryland voters, responders were asked about their views on same-sex unions. The Baltimore Sun reports that in the poll, a "majority favors legalized unions." 39% supported civil unions, but opposed gay marriage. Another 19% supported gay marriage outright. A solid majority, 58%, thus supported some sort of legalized same-sex union. That surprised oldstyleliberal.

Meanwhile, 31% opposed legalizing same-sex unions in any form.

Maryland's governor and legistlature are expected to take up the issue this year. Gov. O'Malley has said he favors civil unions, while being against gay marriage. The President of the State Senate, Thomas V. Mike Miller, a Democrat, opposes both civil unions and same-sex marriage, while supporting "increasing rights for same-sex couples," such as those concerning property ownership and medical decision-making. Another leading Democrat, House of Delegates Speaker Michael E. Busch, endorses civil unions but apparently not same-sex marriage.

Per the Sun, "Maryland law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A lawsuit seeking to overturn that statute failed last year, effectively moving debate over the issue to the State House."

Republicans in the State House may introduce a measure to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex unions:

Foes of gay marriage also plan to push their cause this year. Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr., an Anne Arundel County Republican and one of the General Assembly's most outspoken critics of gay rights, said it is time for the legislature to vote on all of the proposals so that constituents know where their representatives stand. He plans to sponsor a constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions.

The Sun article says that "only half of [the 31% of poll responders who opposed same-sex unions] said a constitutional amendment is needed to ban them."

Gay rights advocates "are pushing for a marriage bill with an exception to make it clear that no religious institutions or clergy would be compelled to perform or recognize those marriages."

In other words, opinions are all over the map on this issue in Maryland.

oldstyleliberal thinks gay marriages — secular, not religious — ought to be made legal. If that is impossible politically, then civil unions ought to be legalized, as they are marriages in all but name, conferring all of the legal rights that heterosexual marriages do. But outright recognition of gay marriage would be better, as it forecloses on the legal hair-splitting that is sure to arise if civil unions become law.

***

"Maryland bishops speak up for marriage: Statement supports marriage as union of man, woman," says a headline in a recent issue of the Catholic Review. The article began:

Archbishops Edwin F. O’Brien of Baltimore and Donald W. Wuerl of Washing­ton, D.C., and Bishop Michael A. Saltarelli of Wilmington, Del., released a statement Jan. 5 supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

The statement, “Marriage in Maryland: Securing the Foun­dation of Family and Society,” was distributed to all parishes for inclusion in January bulle­tins by the Maryland Catholic Conference (MCC), the legis­lative lobbying arm of Mary­land’s Catholic bishops.

Though oldstyleliberal is a Catholic — and not gay — he disagrees with the Church's position on marriage as a matter of civil law, as opposed to a religious sacrament, which it is in the Catholic Church. As a sacrament, whether marriage can be extended to include same-sex couples is a theological question which oldstyleliberal is frankly unable to resolve. As a civil matter, however, marriage ought to be open to all comers, gay or not.

oldstyleliberal thinks this is a good Christian way of looking at things, in fact.

We Christians believe, or ought to, that making love (in all senses of the word) trumps the ability of a married couple to make babies. The Catholic Church insists that a married couple be open to conception and childbirth at all times — supposedly impossible (depending on what "open to" means) for a same-sex couple. Being open to procreation is, however, not contradicted when a heterosexual couple is infertile, or when the husband and wife use the "rhythm method" to avoid pregnancy (since the woman is biologically infertile at certain times of the month). Why doesn't the exception for biological infertility apply to same-sex couples?

According to the CR article, a priest who is pastor of a local Catholic church said:

“Mar­riage is a sacred institution.” If the definition of marriage were altered, [the priest] said, “It would undermine a pillar of our society and would be a terrible fall down the moral ladder.”

oldstyleliberal doesn't buy that. oldstyleliberal thinks allowing gays and lesbians to marry would, if anything, improve the moral tone of society. For one thing, it would cut down on promiscuity among gays if gays could have settled marital relationships. Promiscuity is bad; gay sex is (for gay people) not.

For another thing, having a married gay couple next door might teach the rest of us to be more accepting and tolerant.