Say what you will about Hubbard. I agree with him on most issues - including this. The other two would love for this issue to just go away, and they're probably cursing you right now. Valentino-Smith and Peters will not lose any future election because of their position on this issue, and they know that.

I am of the belief that all religion and its practices should be totally separate from government & politics, this includes marriage, which began as a religious institution and somehow filtered its way into a legal institution. Married couples, gay or otherwise, should not have preferential status under the law for anything, from taxes to medical insurance. This practice is discriminatory to all single people.

I applaud Hubbard for supporting gay marriage, however I am disappointed that he opposed a bill that would allow liquor sales in the county on Sundays, because he didn't want to offend the county churches. Seems a double standard to me. Mr. Peters and Ms. Valentino-Smith need to keep their Catholicism out of their politics and stand up and represent the entire community for which they serve.

John Rouse used to have great articles, but on this issue he is totally WRONG! Retirement seems to have clouded his mind, particularly on this issue. Gay MARRIAGE makes absolutely no sense at all. Nothing wrong with Gay unions, but let's not call it Marriage. Let's just fix the definition of Unions and the social problems associatede with it.

Tony B.

Jeez, poor backwards MD.
It's time, because in America, mariage is firstly a civil and contractual matter. Period.
Cheers, from Joe Mustich, CT Justice of the Peace, USA.

Marriage cops need to retire and just play bingo in the Potomac River.....

Unfortunately you don' t seem to understand that homosexuals engage in a lifestyle of their own choosing. You don't have the right to marry whomever you choose. You need to acquire a license and pay a fee. You're obviously of the view that this is a civil rights issue. I guess it's okay to lie to yourself but don't lie to your readers.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if homosexual couples wanted to bind themselves through contractual agreements. Why do they need the state to recognize their relationships as married couples? What's the reason for pushing this? What are repercussions if gay couples and married couples are considered equal? Have you thought about cases of adoption? Is it reasonable to deprive a child of a mother and a father? How's that going to work? Are judges' decisions going to based merely on material concerns?

State recognition of homosexual marriage is offensive to many people who view marriage as sacred. Where's the respect and sensitivity for their views? Devout Christians do love without condition but it is not they who are rejecting the homosexual community and refusing to minister to them. It is the gay man or woman who rejects them and their values.

I know Mr. Carrington personally and it's disappointing that he favors this legislation. I doubt he, like yourself, ponder the repercussions if Maryland allows same sex marriage.

Matthew F. McLaughlin

As someone who is not gay, but has many gay friends & relatives, since marriage BY LAW conveys certain legal rights to the partners, it is DISCRIMINATORY to treat gay persons differently than me in MD state law. Period. Scream & yell all you want about marriage being a sacred institution, but if you truly believe that, MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT be sanctioned by the state, but a legal domestic partnership should take its place. That way marriage can be the purview of whatever church or organization you want to sanction the legal domestic partnership.
Besides, why should only heterosexuals suffer :-) ?

I'm sorry, but the Catholic Church has lost all credibility with me with any issue involving pro/con support for gay issues. Consider the source prior to weighing their position on gay marriage.

@Joe Neighbor,
Sunday liquor & gay marriage aren't equivalent issues, I meant only that Hubbard cow-towed to the religious community regarding the liquor sales, maybe perhaps to compensate for his stance on gay marriage.
As for the preferential treatment, only married people can file joint tax returns and benefit from that exemption, as for insurance, try buying a "family" policy if you are not married to your partner, and as far as FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) goes, one's "live-in" partner, gay or not, does not qualify. Just a few "perks" of marriage. And, just think of all the divorce lawyers and courts we could eliminate if marriage were not a legal issue.

I feel that gays shouldn't FORCE they're homosexuality on everyone. If you are gay that's the life you chose and because you chose that you must deal with the consequences of that choice. Also when you speak of religion and christians be all loving of their neighbors you are right they love the people not the action. Being gay is an action not a condition. In closing I would just like to say as a young person growing up in this day and age it seems that the people with the biggest problems are those ignorant and prejudicial people who have no understanding of the true facts learn the PEOPLE love the PEOPLE, but denounce the ACTION.

John - your column was wonderfully well written, and I agree with it all. The bigots who disagree with the rights of gays to be married probably wouldn't have wanted to give women the rights to vote either.

As a gay man in a relationship of 13 years I have outlasted many heterosexual couples who are married. The sterotypes need to go away. I used to exclusively vote Democrat but this article has taught me an important lesson about knowing the candidate and their opinions before I vote. It's important to vote for the best candidate and not the party.

Well, since you chose to call me out Matthew, I will respond. I do know Matthew personally and, like his parents, shake my head at some of his positions and statements. With such progressive, wonderful people as parents, I am always amazed at how conservative you seem to want to be. I always thought conservatives wanted government out of their private lives?

This is really simple, under our constitution everyone has a right to due process and equal protection under the law. Since marriage is codified into law, the government cannot deny it's benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities to anyone. You do not get to decide what rights people other people are entitled to through the lens of your interpretation of your faith. We, as a society, have to always side with offending someone's interpretation of scripture/their faith if is being used to oppress someone's rights. If that weren't the case, then we would still have slavery, men could beat their wives at will while marrying as many women as he saw fit and it would be a crime for black and white people to get married. I, for one, am very grateful that we didn't follow the bible's teachings on slavery.

I assume you didn't read the bill from your comments. If you read it, you would see that the religious exemptions exceed those of the establishment clause specifically to protect religious institutions from performing or recognizing marriages that offend their faith.

Freedom means freedom for everyone

More on Matthew's post - Gays have been able to legally adopt in Maryland for over 10 years. Same-sex marriage is not mandatory, heterosexuals will still be allowed to get married and have children together, same as same-sex couples already do, just without the legal protections you get with marriage. The very definition of discrimination and bigotry is saying that a group of people are not "equal" to you and deserving of the same rights, privileges and benefits you enjoy. Saying we should set up a separate, but equal, institution for this group of people is bigotry, discrimination and homophobia. You cannot say you do not have a problem with gay people if you think it is ok to deny them their constitutionally protected rights.

Saying gays and lesbian's struggle for their civil rights is rejecting people's values could be considered correct if it is as Dr. King rejected people's values in his struggle for civil rights for all people, including gays and lesbians. I've grown tired of hearing "we treat marriage as sacred," with a divorce rate hovering at 55% or so. Look at movies like "The Hangover" yeah, people take marriage so sacredly.

Dr. King, Coretta Scott King, Julian Bond, Rep. John Lewis, Rep. Jim Clyburn and Jesse Jackson, some of the great pioneers of the civil rights era support marriage equality and consider it a civil right's issue. Matthew, do you think you have more credibility on what civil rights are then this group of people? Stop hating!

John has hit a bulls-eye with this column. Most Americans support gay marriage, but are probably stopped in their tracks by the minority spewing words from the Bible, just as they spew hatred. I do not have any problems with gay people being allowed to marry. I do have a problem with people who think gays "choose their life-styles" or are "unacceptable because of their actions". What a cop-out. Denying any person their civil rights isn't loving the "PEOPLE", it's tantamount to calling gays and lesbians "second hand" citizens. That isn't love. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation. When are the homophobes and bigots going to admit to the fear and hate, instead of using the Bible as an instrument to deny freedom for everyone? As soon as they realize that the Bible was written by those who said "love one another".

John - Thank you for a great column. You understand what civil rights mean. It's sad that people like Alexander and Matthew (commenting here) believe the foolish idea that gay people can "pick and choose" their sexuality. That foolishness comes from so-called "religious conservatives" who practice hatred and intolerance "in the name of Jesus." People are born gay or straight. Science has PROVEN it. Look it up. Get to know a gay person yourself. It is unfortunately people who choose not to educate themselves that create the issues facing marriage equality.
To Alexander: Gay people don't "force their homosexuality on everyone." It's about equal rights for mature, consenting, taxpaying adults. If you want to look at people forcing views, I think that religious extremists in the U.S. are more forceful than anyone in our country. Look at the Jerry Falwell followers and Fred Phelps. How about these people and our conservative politicians who REALLY force their religion on the entire U.S. Population, when not everyone is a Christian? That's why religion shouldn't dictate civil rights. There are MANY religions in this country, and many who are NOT religious. All of them deserve marriage.

I am disgusted with Sen. Doug Peters (D-Bowie) and Del. Geraldine Valentino Smith (D-Bowie). I'm ashamed that I voted for these two people who obviously have no idea what equality means. Civil Union is NOT equal in protections and benefits of marriage, Ms. Valentino-Smith. I'm also shocked and disgusted with the leaders of the African American Churches who forced their narrow and intolerant views on our legislators. Marriage is a CIVIL right, and African Americans should know that better than anyone. Remember Coretta Scott King? She's rolling over in her grave over your actions.
Darrell makes a great point with the "straight couples divorce rate near 55%." Does gay marriage in the 5 states, Wash, DC; or other countries that have it make straight people divorce more as the "religious right" argues? No. Of course not.
It's good to see that most of the people commenting here understand what civil rights mean and understand that one religion (when there are many here) should not rule this country.

Wow, John's column is right on! The state legislature should be ashamed of itself, especially the local delegation. I wish these annoying ministers would just stick to church business in their gaudy churchs.

Pure Victory. I am so tired of the gay marriage stuff and about time someone had enough balls to say no this is not right. Whatever you do in the privacy of your own home is your business but when you try to claim the same rights as married couples that is really ridiculous. What's next the right to marry an animal because you love them. Give me a break. Christians have sat back too long with acceptance of this nonsense. Yes GOD loves all his children but not the SIN. So you what do you do you form churches to try to make this kind of act acceptable in the eyes of GOD. IT is not acceptable. You can contine to tell yourself this, but our time is near when all will have to stand before the Lord and account for our lives. And the bible says "no man should lay with man" you can't change what it is. I am glad this bill did not pass, and i will contine to fight against it. This behavior is not acceptable. If GOD wanted man together he would have made Adam and Adam. You talk of high rate of sucide, it's because the is act is a sin and no good will ever come from it. You can have your parades, flags whatever, but in the eyes of GOD it's a sin.

Nicole- your hateful IGNORANT comments about "next marrying an animal are disgusting.
You sound like the uneducated and hateful people trying to make invalid arguments against gay marriage.
Please keep your hatred and your religion in your church. I would vote to VOID YOUR marriage in a moment if you're raising children in that same hateful manner.
How DARE YOU put your hatred and IGNORANCE on the rest of society. It's hateful people like you that are the problem. Religion is NOT what rules our country. Civil rights are rights for ALL. You and your comments are Offensive.
You disgust me. You are hateful and bigoted "in the name of Jesus." You are a disgrace to anyone that follows religion. Jesus said "love everyone and treat everyone as your equal." Obviously you missed that message.
I hope the editor strikes your hatred out of this blog.

I love this quote, and it certainly applies to some of these posts:

I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows.
Susan B. Anthony

Nah, Susan did, Joe :-)

John- I would like to see the studies that show that the majority of America supports gay marriage. Especially considering that every state in which the people got to vote for or against gay marriage, it was voted down.

I applaud the MD legistators. No matter how people personally feel about the issue of redefining marriage, the legistators, for the most part, followed the will of their consitituency. They are our REPRESENTATIVES afterall.

The reporting on this issue has been awful. Not once have I read what specific rights or benefits gays couples are not receiving by not having their unions deemed "marriages". Maryland has extended most of the rights married couples have to gay unions. What's missing? And where is all this hate speech being spouted by clergy? It's not hate speech to say you don't agree with someone's lifestyle choice. It may not be what you want to hear, but it's not hateful. I attend church every week and have never heard a priest admonish their parish to harm or hate gay people. In fact, we really don't talk about it all that much . I can't recall a priest ever bringing it up in their homily. Quite frankly, we know where our church stands on the subject and don't need much of a reminder. You obviously don't know what the church teaches as your ignorance is constantly on display here. But if you repeat the lie enough, it must be true.

Which brings me to...when did LGBT supporters turn into Fox News? Most of the supporters that have commented here seem to have taken a page from Bill O, just keep shouting nonsense and half truths, apply nasty labels, and sprinkle in a fact or two to make the rest more believable.

Finally, don't we have more pressing concerns. For all the democrats claim to hate Bush and Rove, they are acting and awful lot like them. When things are going to hell, just change the subject to something the base will get excited about.

Tim - I agree. Let's move on to more pressing matters.

Ray - From where do you draw your facts? Our priests here in Bowie are wonderful men, and your comments are just as offensive as any posted in the comments of this article.

As far as attacking Ms. Smith and Mr. Peters in this article and the posts -they are representing their constituents. That is what representative government is all about. Sometimes it's not so great to be on the losing side of an argument, and perhaps Mr. Rouse should hang HIS head in shame for publicly condemning our local officials for doing their duty.

Ray, I can't comment on all the examples you've given as I haven't had time to research them yet, but in most cases medical coverage is determined by the employer, my company for example does grant family status to same sex couples. Granted, some of this is mandated by state law, but friends of mine work for companies where family coverage is prohibitively expensive or provides inadequate coverage. So it swings both ways.

Additionally, Maryland already recognizes marriages performed in other states and the district (which i disagree with, but as you know, you can't win every decision). So I'm not sure the rest of your comment is entirely accurate, but as I said, haven't had time to research it and the media seems content on focusing at a high level so it'll take some reading to educate myself.

As for the Catholic church comment, your ignorance is quite simply astonishing and offensive. No facts, just slander. Given some of the previous comments, I expected nothing less. Thanks, it only took about 15 minutes for you to prove my point (Bill O would be proud if he weren't Catholic and most likely disgusted by your comment, even he has limits).

Ray never said anything about the Catholic leaders in Bowie. The damage done to thousands directly by Catholic priests and the damage done indirectly through cover-ups is well documented. The incidents were more than just isolated cases, and the cover-ups were systematic. It's ironic to hear Catholics claim that gay couples will do damage to children given the many young people victimized by leaders of the church. Ray is not slandering the Catholic Church, and he doesn't have his facts wrong.

As far as Valentino-Smith and Peters representing their constituents is concerned, I don't think I've seen any polls from their districts. They certainly represented Bryan's view, but not mine. And there's no doubt that they heard from many people who were against the bill, but was it representative? We'll probably never know. I already know that Bryan and I disagree on the premise because I think leadership sometimes means having to vote against the wishes of the people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/catholics-lead-the-way-on-same-sex-marriage/2011/03/04/ABQJQb6_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
Excerpt:
The question was straightforward: “Do you think it should be illegal or legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?” In February 2010, an astounding 55 percent of white Catholics said "legal." In the current poll, the number jumped 8 points to 63 percent. This Post-ABC News poll corresponds with a Gallup poll I gasped at in June 2010. That survey showed that Catholics (62 percent) and men (53 percent) were leading the charge on acceptance of same-sex marriage, which was supported by 52 percent of all surveyed.

i know I am a little late on this issue..but I totally agree with John...what happened to the separation between church and state that our constitution requires? It's a complete disgrace that our local legislators can not separate their private religious beliefs from what the constitution that we live by requires...

John, I know I am late to the discussion as well. But my partner and I of 6 years are raising our two sons here in Bowie. I was disgusted by what had happened in the General Assembly on this issue. Yes, it is true that elected officials are expected to represent their constituents; however, they all took an oath to uphold the Constitution when they took office. Discrimination, no matter how you dress it up or justify with religious rhetoric is unconstitutional. And despite popular belief that marriage is a religious institution started by the church, folks need to do a little research. Marriage has been around LONG before any formal religions decided to sanctify it. But it shouldn't matter anyway. When people get married, they don't apply to the Church of a marriage license. They apply to the State for one. By this very distinction marriage is a civil institution with roots in religious practice. As an openly gay man raising two very healthy and normal kids, and as a tax payer, and lastly as an active Catholic, I find it extremely distressing that some of our legislators allowed politic pressure to prevent them from upholding the Constitution. Balancing the scales by legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland only strengthens the community as a whole. Failing to let this legislation pass was not only morally and constitutionally wrong, but directly hurt me, my partner, and our children. I hope they don't sleep well as a result.