In this day and age, it may be a good time for Maryland, and all the states for that matter, to get out of the marriage business. They are no longer capable of defining it properly. Going back in time 230 years to when our young country was establishing itself, the marriage of every man and every women was almost expected by our Euro- American culture and considered a necessity, if we were to continue mankind's existence on this Earth. The belief of one man with one woman seemed as natural as grass and the tall trees to most people, and apparently natural enough to our original legislators that marriage was incorporated into our laws. Now that this thinking seems to have gone to the wayside for many citizens, because it doesn't feel so natural to them or due course, it may be time to remove marriage from the law and leave it to the individuals and their churches. My Baptismal certificate is in my church's file cabinet, as well as my Communion certificate, Reconciliation certificate, Confirmation Certificate, and Marriage certificate. All of these religious sacraments were bestowed a upon me and accepted by me before God, my family, my fellow congregants, my friends and my wife. I don't remember my legislators being there at all, yet they insist on determining my commitment to my wife and documenting it in their file cabinets.

Tim, You got me curious when you wrote "the true English definition of marriage", and probably for the first time I actually went to the dictionary to see how Webster defines marriage. I've always had my own definition, and mine fit into what traditionalists would call a marriage. I was amused to see three definitions and they went in order from a traditional view and worked their way down to what is about to be defined as by are Legislators. To set the record straight, though tolerating of gays and lesbians, I'm not in favor of this bill.

Thank you Mike for tolerating us Gays. We really appreciate it, especially at tax time, when we pay the same taxes as you do, yet don't enjoy the same rights and protections. Your tolerance really gets me pumped.

This whole issue is being used by the politicians to deflect the public from the real issues. Like they continue to spend our tax dollars like a drunken sailor, enriching themselves and their friends. Meanwhile they cut jobs, benefits, chase compainies out of state and country, pass meaningless laws that have no teath, then see you at church like they really care about you. What a sham!

Marriage as a term means one woman one man. Two men or two woman does not meet that definition so hence no marriage. The state denies each and everyone of us privileges if we do not meet the requirements. I want to be called a lawyer but do not meet the requirements.

This country has run its course..down the drain.. Look at the issues people. We are supporting hundreds of thousands of people on the backs of the working man. Illegals, that get college tuition, health care and anything else there DEMAND. Why because of our representatives. Its a smoke screen making such an issue on Gay Marriage...its a joke. Maybe this representatives are worried about what we may see at the end of their own beds.... Heres a thought lets get a representative that represents our views. Not the views of the blowing wind. They get in and they become Gods. I was married for 40 years and I couldn't care less what people do in their beds.

It is the same with any other discrimination. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of people who say that the gay and lesbian community can do whatever they want, just stay out of marriage. However, until they have legal rights, and it is recognized as "legal", it allows others to legally discriminate, denying basic rights that heterosexual couples have. It is not about the terms used or the definition of said terms or the individual (or religious) acceptance of the union. It is about equal treatment under the law.

The argument is growing very old on me, yet I don't understand why the fight has become over a 'word', opponents want the word reserved for reasons of faith or traditional definition, the proponents want the word because, well, they want it, it's their right <?>. This issue would go away, if the State would get out of the marriage business all together and only recognize 'civil unions', the issuance of a civil union license by the state and consummated by an agent of the state, faith based or civil recognition, what would be wrong with this approach? My marriage, (Catholic) is as Mike defined above is a sacrament...I could care less how the state sees it. They only see me as a means for revenue.

Those who believe marriage to historically be defined as one man and one woman are about as dense as people come. The truth its: it's none of your business. If a man wishes to marry a man, or twenty women, it is their business.

This boils down to religion in government, and nothing more. Well, remember the people had the chance to be governed by their fellow man, of by God, and they chose their fellow man. Don't like it? Burn your Bibles and start your own religion, you fiendish blasphemers.