Friday, January 27, 2012

Maryland Gov O'Malley And Allies Begin Same-Sex Marriage Onslaught

A few days ago, Gov O'Malley introduced Senate Bill 241 "Civil Marriage Protection Act", designed to legalize so-called "gay marriage" in Maryland.  Hearings will begin in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee this Tuesday, January 31st.

The Maryland Marriage Alliance is sponsoring a rally to be held Monday evening, Jan 30, from 6-8pm in Annapolis.  More details are on their flyer, which can be printed and circulated.  Please come.

Last year we helped stave off this marriage mutation attempt by our many phone calls, faxes and emails.  It's time to mobilize ourselves and friends to action once again.  Please contact the members of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and ask them to kill this terrible bill.  Here is a list of the committee members and it links to the pages of the members for their contact information.  Please - let's start on this immediately and encourage everyone you know to spread the word and do the same.

An important note - Governor O'Malley appears to be a main driving force behind this marriage deformation attempt.  He calls himself "Catholic".  Let us point out to our bishops that he is a prime example of why they should be obeying Canon 915.

Addendum:  Here's another good source for info on this issue and other Maryland matters - Maryland Patriots.  Here's their page on the marriage matter.  Check this page from time to time.


  1. Who do you think is a greater danger to the institution of marriage; Dan Savage or Newt Gingrich?

  2. Which one is advocating for the distortion of marriage to be anything other than the lifelong union of a biological man and biological woman that has as one of its goals the endgenderment and rearing of children? The answer to that is the answer to your question.

  3. No, "Dan Savage" or "Newt Gingrich" is the answer to my question. A further question is not an answer. That being said, I'll address it anyway.
    Marriage has meant whatever people have decided it meant at that time. Through most of the Common Era, both in and outside Christendom, it was primarily a property transaction, arranged by the families of the wedded couple, often without their input. Ideas on what constituted fidelity similarly fluctuated; look at how many men in Genesis either took multiple wives or conceived with their servants. That certainly wouldn't be acceptable today, except maybe to Warren Jeffs.
    Today marriage means things and carries with it things that it didn't previously. It is a civic institution as well as religious, and encompasses benefits on taxes, estate planning, healthcare, housing, personal finance, et cetera. Virtually none of those things have anything to do with the gender of the couple. It is a violation of the Constitutional notion of equal protection to deny, for example, the right to priority of appointment as a conservator, because the couple is homosexual instead of heterosexual.
    And what greater harm could a gay couple do to marriage than Rush Limbaugh (3), Newt Gingrich (3), Glenn Beck (2), Rudy Giuliani (3), Fred Thompson (2), David Vitter (DC Madam), Mark Sanford (Appalachian Trail), and any number of other defenders of "traditional marriage" I could name already have done?

  4. Thomas, I answered your question. You may not like how I answered it, but I really don't care.

    "Marriage has meant whatever people have decided it meant.." does seem to iterate your philosophy in a nutshell. It is a lifelong union that I described in my first reply, as taught by God through His Church. Don't like it? Tough. As far as those individuals mentioned above, their behaviors do not invalidate the concept of marriage.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.