Delegate Heather Mizeur supports marriage rights for same-sex couples and Delegate Cathy Vitale gives the argument against the proposal in this discussion with Len Lazarick of MarylandReporter.com.
Delegate Heather Mizeur supports marriage rights for same-sex couples and Delegate Cathy Vitale gives the argument against the proposal in this discussion with Len Lazarick of MarylandReporter.com.
New Ways Ministry has declared Delegate Heather Mizeur the winner of this Catholic debate. Here’s the reasons why: http://wp.me/p21uEP-ic
This is not an issue that should be decided by the Democratic controlled legislture or the governor’s house. Let the people have a direct vote on this issue. I cannot believe that the legislature put slots on the ballot but not a massive social issue such as this to a vote? There is also an issue with the law of un-intended consequences. Just look at the past legislation on various issues, most recently the alcohol tax. It started out at a dime a drink only to morph into a tax that doesn’t deliver promises made yet taxes more than alcohol. As usual with any legislation, the devil is in the details.
One of the best, most civil, and most powerful debates on marriage equality I’ve seen yet. Two MD State Delegates, both practicing Catholics, both calm and respectful and concise. Superbly moderated. Del. Mizeur took a very calm, even spiritual, approach throughout, and in my opinion prevailed in focusing rightly upon improving lives. That’s the job of any elected official, but it rarely comes with such a combination of intellectual and spiritual capacity.
The “Church” should be left out of this. God did not create marriage, man did in order to protect property and inheritance rights long before the Catholic Church co-opted it. As to funding of religious schools, there should be none. The decision to send your child to any private school (religious or otherwise) or to decide to homeschool, does not diminish your responsiblity to the community in terms of fiduciary obligation (the complaint that why should you pay for public education if you don’t use it) with regard to the common good. If I put a security system in my home and hire a private security firm, it doesn’t mean I have no obligation to contribute (through my taxes) to the cost of the police department.
Well done. It’s nice to see a debate conducted without condescension. A point I’d like to see raised more often in this kind of discussion are the marriage rights of those who explicitly choose not have a religious ceremony or, indeed, any ceremony at all. It might just be my pro-marriage equality bias, but it is difficult to imagine how citing religious concerns for the prevention of marriage equality doesn’t amount to state sponsorship of religion.
I think the fact that thousands — at the least — of opposite sex couples annually choose to have a state-sponsored wedding rather than one sponsored by a particular religious sect makes (or at least should make) the issue a non-starter. My marriage is sanctioned by the state and had no religious aspect whatever. I don’t recall having my partner’s sexual orientation questioned and, as I understand it (from the Internet, but still), the Maryland law defining marriage as opposite sex only was stuck down.
Also, I was surprised to see the issue of school funding included in the debate.
Although Ms. Vitale can choose to make any argument she wishes, raising the specter of reduced state funding to church schools, especially as public schools are struggle and continued local cuts are on the horizon, is an unconvincing objection. Literally most Marylanders do not send their children to church or Catholic schools. Many if not most of them would certainly have no problem with the reallocation of those education funds to the taxpayers’ rather than tithers’ benefit.