Legalizing same-sex marriage is sensible

I’m glad to see Jay Hancock put a business perspective on this issue. Business is about margins. It is about productivity. It is about a competitive edge. It is about recognizing assets and putting them to use. The key to business success is always having the right people to do the job. That’s why progressive and forward-thinking businesses offer domestic partner benefits.

Government should be run more like a business and less like a private club. That means that it should try to increase options rather than decrease them. Way to go, Jay!

Wow, Jay, for better or for worse, you sure have stirred up a hornet's nest. But stick to your guns.

Jay's job is to report the news, not to give his opinion. If I want opinions I'll watch Hannity and Combs. This article is a complete overstepping of boundries.

The protestors once again cannot develop any logical, unbiased rationale for not legalizing gay marriage. They use their self-righteousness and then the non-sensical marrying my cat arguements, but all their underlying reasons boil down to religious bigotry and moral grandstanding. Most of these same arguements were used by the same religious and social bigots to keep interracial marriages illegal. Most people would agree the world has not come to an end. I do not view this as diversity or tolerance and I do not equate it to economic benefits - I just view it as legally and Constitutionally correct.

Steve wrote:

I stridently disagree with this editorial.
"And don't be surprised if they bring economic dividends."
So money is more important than values? Good to hear that you're at least willing to admit your driven by money and nothing else.
"Nobody chooses to be gay. But by approving gay marriage, Maryland can choose to improve its record of equal opportunity for everybody, which is the only way to run an economy."
Typical liberal drivel. Every homosexual chooses to be gay, just as every adulterer has the self-control and choice no matter how much his baser nature wants to sleep with another man's wife. God wouldn't condemn something that they have no choice over.
Maryland should respect the will of the voters and if they feel this strongly about it, they should put it the voters to have them weigh in on it.

"Every homosexual chooses to be gay, just as every adulterer has the self-control and choice no matter how much his baser nature wants to sleep with another man's wife. God wouldn't condemn something that they have no choice over."

Wait a minute...How does a person choose to be gay? I mean I'm gay...and I know I didn't choose it. In fact I've tried to be straight...but the fact of the matter is, I'm not. I can't do something/be with someone if it doesn't feel right...and being with guys, for me doesn't feel right, never has. Now you can try and argue "well maybe you haven't been with the right guy" but a person knows when they're attracted to another person. I don't choose who I find attractive...it's something that just happens. You can't force yourself to love someone just because they're of the opposite sex...that's just living a lie.

Mario wrote:

"Every homosexual chooses to be gay, just as every adulterer has the self-control and choice ..."
If this is the case, then what you mean to say is every MAN choose to be either gay or straight. if you choose to be gay, then you can be just as easily straigth. I think this is the crux of anti-homosxual sentiment among conservatives. They fear that if homosexuality is widely accepted, then they too will have to face that difficult choice, and they aren't too sure which way they'd choose. Please keep your God and your mental issues out of my personal life. If you want to live in a theoracy, move to Iran.

I totally agree. Why do people make such a big deal about this? I mean, who honestly has the choice to choose who they love or find attractive...it's something that just happens. My thinking is, if you're comfortable enough with your own sexuality to say "hey this is the way I am and I can't change it" then I think you should be commended for that and shouldn't be so put off by other people's sexual preferences.

Todd wrote:

Jay's job is to report the news, not to give his opinion. If I want opinions I'll watch Hannity and Combs. This article is a complete overstepping of boundries.

I'm curious what you mean by "report the news".

A look at many of his recent columns suggests that his opinion...or perhaps his perspective...surfaces in those as well.

Based on the slant/tone/perspective in some of his other columns, maybe his job is to do exactly what he did in this article. The difference seems to be that you don't like the topic.

This article is a typical liberal sunpaper view. I am totally against same sex marriage. I don't care about the potential economic benefits you claim since same sex marriage is morally WRONG.

What about the children that will be affected by legitimizing gay marriage, what about their lives. Not sure where you’re getting your research but tolerance is not a part of this decision. Why can't gay people just live their lives and stop promoting their life style. Why are we all not tolerant enough because our morals say that the gay life style is indecent?

Dave wrote:

This article is a typical liberal sunpaper view. I am totally against same sex marriage. I don't care about the potential economic benefits you claim since same sex marriage is morally WRONG.

Then don't show up at a gay marriage ceremony and you won't have to deal with it.

RJM wrote:

What about the children that will be affected by legitimizing gay marriage, what about their lives. Not sure where you’re getting your research but tolerance is not a part of this decision. Why can't gay people just live their lives and stop promoting their life style. Why are we all not tolerant enough because our morals say that the gay life style is indecent?

Gays are not "promoting" their lifestyle. That's the same as saying African-Americans promoted their lifestyle/culture just to get equal rights. As for the children, I know alot of gay couples that have adopted and those children and they are happy, normal, well loved, well taken care of children. They probably have alot more opportunities than most children. To shield children from what is a fact of life is the same as promoting intolerance.

Todd wrote:

This article is something I would expect to see in the Blade, not the Sun. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be shocked at all. Cancel my subscription.

Every wise businessman pays attention to the competition--the enemy, so to speak. That's why you shouldn't cancel your subscription. However, you can relax with the knowledge that you are in august company, severing those who espouse opposing views. Our country is being led by someone with that penchant.

I think Jay has done a nice job framing the issue from a money and economic perspective. That is afterall his field of expertise, and pretty much every issue has an economic impact.

Hager wrote:

<quoted text>
Every wise businessman pays attention to the competition--the enemy, so to speak. That's why you shouldn't cancel your subscription. However, you can relax with the knowledge that you are in august company, severing those who espouse opposing views. Our country is being led by someone with that penchant.

So if something makes economic sense, it is unsensible to have a moral scruple with an issue? I'm not severing anyone, I'm just saying that Jay presents a debatable and highly contentious issue as fact and that is not good journalism. It is arrogant and preachy.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Gays are not "promoting" their lifestyle. That's the same as saying African-Americans promoted their lifestyle/culture just to get equal rights. As for the children, I know alot of gay couples that have adopted and those children and they are happy, normal, well loved, well taken care of children. They probably have alot more opportunities than most children. To shield children from what is a fact of life is the same as promoting intolerance.

This may be your fact of life but children are not an experiment field, they deserve the best and that is one man with one woman.

"There, you are wrong. There have been studies conducted that shows homosexuality is not "chosen". You're born that way, the same way an adulterer is born that way. The same way you were born to be heterosexual. Did YOU choose to be heterosexual? No. You were born that way. Could you choose to be gay instead? No, you could not. Until you live the life of a homosexual, you know nothing about it."

Hear, hear! The famous 'studies have shown' argument. Unfortunately for you, these studies are ideology-driven garbage that prove nothing. The only absolutes are that homosexuality is wrong - always has been and always will be - just like adultery. You won't find a lot of support for suggesting that adulterers are born that way, either. But at least you admit that they're in the same boat.

"Wait a minute...How does a person choose to be gay? I mean I'm gay...and I know I didn't choose it. In fact I've tried to be straight...but the fact of the matter is, I'm not. I can't do something/be with someone if it doesn't feel right...and being with guys, for me doesn't feel right, never has. Now you can try and argue "well maybe you haven't been with the right guy" but a person knows when they're attracted to another person. I don't choose who I find attractive...it's something that just happens. You can't force yourself to love someone just because they're of the opposite sex...that's just living a lie. "

Just because you 'feel' something doesn't make it right. I can 'feel' attracted to a married woman or I can 'feel' like stealing a car, but that doesn't make it right. God is not the author of confusion - that's why there are do's and don'ts and one of the big don'ts is don't be a homosexual. You can lie to yourself to the grave but in your heart of hearts, you know the truth just like the rest of us.

"Then don't show up at a gay marriage ceremony and you won't have to deal with it."

That's exactly why we don't want gay marriage legalized because, guess what, whether you attend a gay marriage or not, you're going to end up reading about it in the newspaper along with hetero marriages. You see, the gays are all about recognition and are waging a war of attrition on American values and especially against the younger generation of Americans to try to make them believe it's okay and normal. That's what this whole debate is about - forcing people to accept something that is fundamentally unacceptable. Fortunately, most state governments aren't buying this nonsense becaue the voters have spoken. And thank the good Lord we've got a Supreme Court that shies from this sort of thing (unlike Canada or other countries).

But it's clear that there is no consensus on the issue of same-sex marriages. So when all else fails, put it to the people to decide - rather than the politicians or the courts. After all, America (and her individual states) is a democracy!

Rome in its day was also open minded. Rome fell and so to will we it we continue down this path.

RJM wrote:

<quoted text>
This may be your fact of life but children are not an experiment field, they deserve the best and that is one man with one woman.

Many thousands of families with children are now headed by same-sex couples, and their numbers will keep increasing. I personally think that's a terrific thing -- I understand that you do not -- but it is a fact, and it's not something that you can stop or reverse.

That being the case, the arguments against the security and the protections of marriage for these families are *not* arguments in favor of the well-being of children. Quite the contrary.