Post User Polls

Should Maryland legalize same-sex marriage?

A majority of senators on a key committee in Maryland now favor legalizing same-sex marriage, making it increasingly likely that the state will join five others and the District in allowing such unions.

Membership changes on the panel, where same-sex marriage bills have previously died, are among a handful of shifts produced by last month's elections. Collectively, they appear to have tipped the balance on the most high-profile social issue the General Assembly will consider during its upcoming 90-day session. Read the full story.

By Abha Bhattarai  |  December 9, 2010; 11:04 AM ET  | Category:  Local Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: What's the greatest benefit for Obama in extending the Bush tax cuts? | Next: What is the next step in 'don't ask, don't tell'?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Long, long overdue.

Posted by: WesD | December 9, 2010 1:19 PM

The government cannot discriminate based on sexual identity. Not allowing gay folks to have the same status in taxes, rights, survivorship, etc. as straight folks is pure discrimination.

Long overdue.

Posted by: janeway1 | December 9, 2010 1:21 PM

It is way overdue, but it makes me happy to see Maryland catching up with the times and doing what is best for its citizens. Go Maryland!!!

Posted by: pcca | December 9, 2010 4:12 PM

I think it's--well, gross, but I guess it's really none of my business, so if they want to get married, they should be allowed to.

Posted by: nuzuw | December 9, 2010 4:54 PM

A better question might be: Does the government have the right to change the definition of marriage. I posit this question recognizing that our government did not create the institution of marriage, which predates our government by thousands of years.

Just food for thought.

Posted by: concernedcitizen3 | December 9, 2010 4:59 PM

Having sexual relationship with the same sex is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know the consequences in the Book of Genesis., Chapter 19. If the Creator of the universe wanted same sex to marry each other, he could have created an Eve for Eve and an Adam for Adam. Why don't we stick to the creator's perfect design? He has given us a clear example.

Posted by: selence | December 9, 2010 5:02 PM

Having sexual relationship with the same sex is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know the consequences in the Book of Genesis., Chapter 19. If the Creator of the universe wanted same sex to marry each other, he could have created an Eve for Eve and an Adam for Adam. Why don't we stick to the creator's perfect design? He has given us a clear example.

Posted by: selence | December 9, 2010 5:09 PM

Having sexual relationship with the same sex is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know the consequences in the Book of Genesis., Chapter 19. If the Creator of the universe wanted same sex to marry each other, he could have created an Eve for Eve and an Adam for Adam. Why don't we stick to the creator's perfect design? He has given us a clear example.

Posted by: selence

You find using the same tools to have sex that are used to go poddy a "perfect design". Or having food and air share the same pipe for a delivery system to be a perfect design?

There were a whole bunch of problems with Sodom and Gomorrah, including, but not limited to adultery and using incense.

http://www.whosoever.org/v2i3/sodom.html

Posted by: James10 | December 9, 2010 5:45 PM

Reality: homosexuals and lesbians do the same things in their sex lives that heterosexuals do. They just do it with same-sex partners. If you think it's gross, then don't watch. But don't discriminate against them either.

Posted by: bravegirl01 | December 9, 2010 5:53 PM

In ruling against same-sex marriage a few years ago, Maryland's high court argued that marriage was for procreation. Faulty reasoning. That same argument could be easily used to deny legal marriage to straight couples who are infertile by circumstance or choice. Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't interfere with straight couples procreating, and some gay couples do procreate with outside assistance.

Posted by: Carstonio | December 9, 2010 6:46 PM

Marriage means husband and wife, as any seven year old anywhere on the planet can tell you. So-called quote/unquote same-sex marriage is a logical nullity akin, say, to a square circle or an arid ocean.

Posted by: thebump | December 9, 2010 7:58 PM

Why stop there, Maryland? How about polygamists, polyamorists, S&M love-slaves, pedophiles, practitioners of bestiality, necrophiliacs?

They all believe in love, too. They all claim to be "normal." Who are we to judge?

Posted by: Horace2 | December 9, 2010 8:13 PM

This would be good for Maryland's economy. People will come there to get married. Good for economy.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | December 9, 2010 10:07 PM

"Does the government have the right to change the definition of marriage. I posit this question recognizing that our government did not create the institution of marriage, which predates our government by thousands of years."

The "institution of marriage" has varied so widely across times and cultures that the only common thread anthropologists have found has been the acquisition of in-laws.

But if genitals and breeding ability mean more to your "definition of marriage" than love and commitment, feel free to define marriage that way. No one says you have to acknowledge all legal marriages as "real", just as I don't have to acknowledge your genital-obsessed breeding arrangement as a "real" marriage. Just don't insist that your definition be forced on others, and I won't try to veto the legal status of your marriage because your definition does violence to human emotional range and flexibility. It's not government's place to tell us what marriage should mean to you or me personally - it's government's place to recognize civil contracts agreed to by consenting adults without discriminating unfairly.

"Marriage means husband and wife, as any seven year old anywhere on the planet can tell you. So-called quote/unquote same-sex marriage is a logical nullity akin, say, to a square circle or an arid ocean."

Marriage is a human-defined institution that has meant many things - including husband and wives, wife and husbands, husband and property, woman-who-belongs-to-the-clan and man-or-men-who-just-visit/s-at-night, and yes, male-male and female-female relationships.

Suggesting that you have the right to deny quite a lot of human experience, and to shoehorn a remarkably flexible and adaptable institution into YOUR particular definition ONLY for EVERYONE is both egotistical and ridiculous. Not to mention damaging for anyone whose marriage doesn't fit your Procrustean bed.


Posted by: Catken1 | December 9, 2010 10:46 PM

"Why stop there, Maryland? How about polygamists, polyamorists, S&M love-slaves, pedophiles, practitioners of bestiality, necrophiliacs?

They all believe in love, too. They all claim to be "normal." Who are we to judge?"

Polygamy is far more difficult for the state to manage, given that we could not in our culture limit it to only one sex. There is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory reason for the state to say, "One marriage to a customer" - which is fundamentally different from saying, "You may marry the person of your choice, but you may not." It's like saying "You may choose to become a citizen of the US, but you must renounce other citizenships to do so," vs. "English and Irish and Italian people may become citizens of the US, but not French or Swedish people."

Children, animals and dead people may not enter into any legal contract, not only marriage, because they are not judged capable of legal consent. If you do not understand the importance of legal consent to sexual activity and marriage, then you are a truly scary person. Is it really only "tradition" that keeps you from thinking that raping someone who can't give consent is OK?

As far as I know, there is no legal prohibition on practitioners of S&M being allowed to marry, and many of them do.

Posted by: Catken1 | December 9, 2010 10:52 PM

Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia

Go for a cure instead

Posted by: georgedixon1 | December 9, 2010 11:11 PM

Civil unions.

Posted by: SCOTSGUARDS | December 10, 2010 1:48 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company