Now that we've heard the argument against same-sex marriage from the mouth of Protect Marriage Maryland leader Robert Broadus—gays "have gained so much power at this point in time"—let's hear why other anti-gay-marriage forces are working to halt same-sex marriage legislation in the state.
Maryland groups' best rationales for preventing gays from getting married—from "think of the children" to "legislation too ironic"—after the jump.
Traditional marriage so great it must be enforced. The Association of Maryland Families opposes same-sex marriage in the state because "God designed the traditional family to serve as the foundation of our civilization," the group claims. "The union of men and women in marriage is and should be the bedrock institution in our society. This enduring family model provides the best environment for love, commitment, support, and natural affection to be expressed, shared, and enjoyed." This model is so wonderful that governments must create gender-specific laws to ensure that men and women experience this "natural" expression of affection, sharing, and enjoyment.
Marriage has been around for centuries! Maryland 4 Marriage, a coalition of groups dedicated to "preserving" traditional marriage in the state, goes the traditional route. "If our legislators make the decision to abandon traditional marriage wholesale, it will permanently impact Maryland businesses, education, and the family unit," Maryland 4 Marriage argues. "We are working to let your voice be heard in the fight to protect traditional marriage and preserve its centuries' old definition as being between one man and one woman." Happy stock photo family is into it. The Concerned Women for America counts itself as part of this coalition.
Think of the children. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, a Reedville, Va. based "ex-gay" advocacy group, argues that "children matter" too much to allow gays to impede the future of "the human race" by coupling together. PFOX board member Peter Sprigg recently made that argument in an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun, writing: "Do children matter in Maryland? That is the question that will be at stake in 2011, when the Maryland legislature considers radically changing the definition of our most fundamental social institution—marriage," Sprigg wrote. "Marriage is a public institution because it serves two public purposes: bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping together a man and woman to raise to maturity the children produced by their union." Who cares if one or more of those people is gay!
Legislation too ironic. The American Family Association takes issue with the literary devices employed in the Maryland bill. "Ironically named the 'Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,' the two bills would strike from the existing marriage law the words 'a man and a woman,' and replace them with the words 'two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying,'" a recent AFA mailer reads.