Redefining marriage will not destroy society

Re: "Changing definition of marriage is dangerous," From Readers, Oct. 24

Elizabeth Ward Nottrodt asserts that changing the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexual unions would be a disaster for society because marriage is meant for procreation and the nurturing of children.

I wonder what she would think of my marriage, or those of countless of other heterosexuals in which no children are involved. Should my marriage license be rescinded for not following the strict rules of procreation as laid out by Ms. Nottrodt?

I think not, nor do I think society will collapse simply because two men or two women who want to commit themselves to one another are given the legal right to do so.

Heterosexuals will continue to marry, procreate and nurture children. This will not change one bit. Nor do I worry that my marriage of nearly 17 years will be jeopardized in any way by the marriage of anyone else. Frankly, it's none of my business. Stop the fear mongering.

Finally, I wonder if it is lost on Ms. Nottrodt that she is expressing the very intolerance she fears will become rampant if homosexual marriages are given legal recognition.

Jason Ramage


Both candidates serve their moneyed backers, not the poor

Re: "Romney, not Obama, shows concern for nation's poor," Oct. 23

Byron York states that, at least in the view of Mitt Romney's aides, their candidate has always been concerned about poverty.He may be -- and so may President Obama.But both presidential candidates are quite willing to serve the agendas of influential, moneyed backers who are not concerned about the poor.

We have had neglect at home and meddling abroad under President Obama, and Romney shows no signs of going down a different political path.The American public is not being given a real choice.

Wars, violating other countries' sovereignty and disgraceful federal prisons are just some of the negatives that do not seem to trouble either candidate.

As an American, I can endorse neither one.

R.J. Jones


Nobody talking about casino's collateral damage

Re: "Casino at National Harbor would bring jobs, revenue," From Readers, Oct. 19

In her letter, Susan Beckwell states all the positives a new casino would bring to Maryland if Question 7 is approved. But what is easily ignored by most politicians SEmD and many voters SEmD are the negatives.

Just like drugs, gambling can be very addicting. Another casino will surely cause more people to lose their homes, jobs, retirement accounts, families, mental health and well-being. And with the projected revenues, there is no doubt that many people will lose substantial sums. Most of that money will not be spent on other goods and services elsewhere in the state.

There is also the collateral damage gambling brings. They call Vegas "Sin City" for a good reason. It bothers me that elected officials have to stoop this low in their ongoing efforts to separate citizens from their paychecks.

Richard Tammaro