Editorial: Maryland's marriage law protects religious institutions while affirming principles
For Question 6
Our view: Maryland's marriage equality law protects religious institutions while affirming the principle that no one should face discrimination under the law
October 30, 2012
The case for Question 6, which would affirm Maryland's law authorizing same-sex marriage, is simple. It upholds the principle that the law should treat everyone the same. Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution. Churches, synagogues and mosques have always set their own rules about which marriages they recognize, and this law does not change that fact. What it does is to ensure that no Marylander faces discrimination under the law when it comes to one of the state's fundamental institutions.
Opponents of the measure have sought to confuse the issue by warning of unintended consequences of marriage equality. They claim that those who, for religious reasons, oppose same-sex unions will be persecuted. That children will be taught about same-sex marriage in school against their parents' will. That it will somehow rob children of the best possible upbringing.
Those are no more than scare tactics.
The prime example opponents of gay marriage have raised to back up their claim of persecution is Gallaudet University's chief diversity officer, Angela McCaskill, who was suspended with pay after school officials learned she had signed the petition to put Question 6 on the ballot. The gay rights community in Maryland, from the governor on down, has urged that she be reinstated, and Ms. McCaskill's attorney has said she wants the Maryland Marriage Alliance to stop using her in its ads.
The Question 6 opposition has alluded in its advertising to three other isolated and spurious examples of supposed persecution: a high school guidance counselor in Maine who was subject to a complaint after he spoke out against gay marriage; a Canadian sportscaster who was fired shortly after sending an anti-gay-marriage tweet; and the owners of a Vermont inn who were sued after a lesbian couple was told they could not have a wedding reception there. The complaint against the guidance counselor was dismissed; the sportscaster's former employer says his firing had nothing to do with his tweet (the matter is currently tied up in mediation); and the Vermont innkeepers were sued under that state's law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, which has nothing to do with its gay marriage law. Maryland has had such a law for a decade and will continue to no matter what happens to Question 6.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-10-30/news/bs-ed-question-6-20121030_1_gay-marriage-maryland-marriage-alliance-marriage-equality
