As badly as he has bungled our state, Lord help us if that happens.
Delegates Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga released a joint statement on gay marriage shortly after Friday evening’s vote which made several valid points. Here’s what they had to say.
The Governor is pushing his same sex marriage bill he knows that by passing it here in Maryland would look great on his political resume. In fact the Washington Post stated “Perhaps no other O’Malley effort is being watched as closely nationally as same-sex marriage.” I find it extremely appalling that O’Malley is using and abusing our State to advance his own national political agenda to the detriment of our Maryland families.
For those who are ambivalent, thinking that “this won’t affect me”, the consequences of passing gay marriage will permeate many aspects of our society. The definition of marriage does not need to be redefined. I support traditional marriage, one man and one woman, and here is why:
- Traditional marriage builds families – mom, dad, and children – and gives hope that the next generations will carry that family into the future.
- In states where marriage has been redefined, activists have implemented a homosexual agenda in the schools to children as young as kindergarten. I am opposed to promoting gay marriage in our public schools and once it is “legal” in this state the curriculum will follow the law.
- The people of Maryland don’t need the legislature to tell them what marriage is. Marriage is an institution of the people, not politicians, and the legislature should know better than to try and take the definition of marriage away from them.
This legislation has taken a front seat this session and it is the biggest family issue we are facing but I know it is not the ONLY issue. I know that the taxes and fees, which the Governor is proposing, are an assault on your way of life and I am in Annapolis fighting for you.
There’s no doubt in my mind that gay marriage is strongly backed by a small minority who wants to rationalize their behavior by imposing it on the rest of us. I don’t really care who sleeps with who, but it bothers me when activists couch it as a question of civil rights when truly it’s a matter of choice.
I made the point a few days ago in a comment to this post that perhaps being gay is like coming from an alcoholic family in the sense that if you know booze is going to be a problem you can simply address it by being a teetotaler. In other words, you make the decision and there are consequences. In the case of an alcoholic family, there’s a larger possibility of health problems or accidents caused by excessive drinking, while in the case of choosing to be gay or lesbian you run afoul of most religions and can’t naturally have children – prior to a few years ago you couldn’t be “married” either. Of course, there is a tendency for alcoholism to run in families but I have a harder time seeing a genetic origin for homosexuality – thus, it must be behaviorally based. Remember, up until the middle part of the last century homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder. Only in the last 40 years or so has political correctness removed that stigma.
But the push from Governor O’Malley only seemed to come once one of his chief rivals for the 2016 nomination, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, got his state to approve gay marriage. Critics on the far left have lambasted O’Malley’s record so he had to pander to the uber-liberal crowd which runs the national Democratic establishment and use gay marriage to establish his social issue bona fides. Raising taxes, falling for the global warming nonsense, spending on environmental boondoggles, sucking up to Big Labor, and playing guitar wasn’t enough; O’Malley had to up the ante.
So unless the citizens of Maryland restore common sense and defeat the bill in referendum this November – and certainly proponents are shrewd enough to know that the larger turnout of a presidential election helps their cause because the proportion of voters who can be seduced by their “fairness” argument will be larger in a presidential election than a gubernatorial one – come January 1 there will be a run on whatever locales will be open that day for gay and lesbian couples to be “married.”
Will it make a difference in the short term? Probably not, but this was never really about here and now. As Delegates Aumann and Szeliga point out, legitimizing the homosexual agenda in schools will only be the start, particularly in an era where children are vulnerable to that sort of exploitation. There’s a reason that support for gay marriage is much stronger among youth than it is among older people, and it has nothing to do with “tolerance” because true tolerance would welcome all views, and it’s clear not all views are appreciated in schools – Christians and others who believe in traditional values need not apply.
The next two years promise more of the same because it’s no longer about what’s best for Maryland. Instead, it’s going to be about what’s perceived to be best for Martin O’Malley’s future political plans. California may have some company as the loony liberal trendsetter.