Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9652 comments on the The Skanner story from Mar 1, 2012, titled Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches. In it, The Skanner reports that:

With Maryland poised to legalize gay marriage, some conservative opponents and religious leaders are counting on members of their congregations, especially in black churches, to upend the legislation at the polls this fall.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Skanner.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6406 Sep 9, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Romney also claimed he was unequivocally pro-choice. He shapes his principals to whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. He cannot be trusted on anything.
He even ran for and won the governorship of Massachusetts, claiming that he had been a resident continuously over the last several years, even though he was living in Utah. It turns out, he told the tax authorities in Massachusetts and Utah that he was a Utah resident until that fact became inconvenient to his eligibility for the governorship.
Presumably, he wanted the people of Massachusetts to believe that he loved and respected Massachusetts as well. But shortly after winning the election, he set his eyes on a bigger prize: The hostile takeover of the US government. In order to secure that takeover, he changed nearly all his positions. He toured the country disparaging the state which he himself governed in front of conservative audiences.
During his last year in office--as his first run for President was in full gear--he issued well over 100 vetoes. Every single veto was overridden by the legislature. Several of his bills were overridden unanimously: Not even members of his own party would help him. After four consecutive Republican governors, his antics on the presidential road show absolutely killed Kerry Healey's chances of winning the corner office for in Massachusetts.
That's why the Massachusetts Republican Party has been unenthusiastic about his candidacy. He burned his bridges even to his own party. He claimed that the people of Massachusetts were glad they "hired" him. If that were the case, why does no poll ever taken in Massachusetts give him a snowball's chance in Cairo of winning that state?
The fact is that Romney doesn't care who he hurts to get what he wants. The man is a sociopath.
Thanks for all the peanuts, guys. I love peanuts.

I also love the fact that nobody can make a valid rebuttal of my post. Every fact is easily verified.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6407 Sep 10, 2012
DNF wrote:
...FaFoxy came up with a very astute observation. We are NOT the new black. We are more like the old black, facing bigotry like yours...
Except homosexuals have always been able to pass and have every privilege that straights have. Many homosexuals have married under the same rules as everyone else, I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples.

Same sex marriage supporters are freeloaders riding on the shoulders of the Freedom Riders.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6408 Sep 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Except homosexuals have always been able to pass and have every privilege that straights have.
Really? You've never met anyone who wasn't obviously gay the first moment you met them? And I'm not talking about cross-dressers or even fashion queens. I'm talking about people who live very normal lives, but you can tell the moment you meet them.

And you can only pass with acquaintances. Once you develop close ties with people, they begin to notice whether or not you have dates with the opposite sex and they start to fix you up with their single friends. Eventually, they figure it out.

Or are you just too stupid?
Many homosexuals have married under the same rules as everyone else, I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples.
Oh and what a happy end for Mr. Wilde, don't you think?
Same sex marriage supporters are freeloaders riding on the shoulders of the Freedom Riders.
Tell that to those who actually WERE freedom riders. Tell that to Coretta King, Julian Bond, Bayard Rustin,... The anti-gay bigots are losing another of their puppets with Bernice King "evolving."
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/01/bernice-ki...
There are, of course, a lot of self-proclaimed leaders of the black community who are sitting on the laurels of a previous generation, and they want all the attention for themselves. They're the real freeloaders riding on the shoulders of Freedom Riders.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6409 Sep 10, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You've never met anyone who wasn't obviously gay the first moment you met them? And I'm not talking about cross-dressers or even fashion queens. I'm talking about people who live very normal lives, but you can tell the moment you meet them.
If they live 'normal' lives...how can you tell they are gay???
And you can only pass with acquaintances. Once you develop close ties with people, they begin to notice whether or not you have dates with the opposite sex and they start to fix you up with their single friends. Eventually, they figure it out.
Or are you just too stupid?
<quoted text>
Oh and what a happy end for Mr. Wilde, don't you think?
<quoted text>
Tell that to those who actually WERE freedom riders. Tell that to Coretta King, Julian Bond, Bayard Rustin,... The anti-gay bigots are losing another of their puppets with Bernice King "evolving."
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/01/bernice-ki...
There are, of course, a lot of self-proclaimed leaders of the black community who are sitting on the laurels of a previous generation, and they want all the attention for themselves. They're the real freeloaders riding on the shoulders of Freedom Riders.
There are 'many' African American leaders that disagree with all you mentioned above...most African Americans do NOT see this is the same struggle and are offended by gay people attempting to latch on...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6410 Sep 10, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the 9th amendment recognizes not all civil rights are spelled out in the bill of rights. That does not mean they are not still civil rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --The Ninth Amendment
On 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has affirmed that marriage is one of those previously un enumerated fundamental civil rights protected by the constitution.
Your denial of reality does not change the fact marriage is firmly established as a civil right.
What law in any state says a man can not marry, or a woman can not marry....we 'have' equal laws...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6411 Sep 10, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people are harmed in a wide variety of ways by denial of equal legal treatment:
"We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement." Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health
The American Psychological Association : "Prejudice and discrimination have social and personal impact." "The widespread prejudice, discrimination, and violence to which lesbians and gay men are often subjected are significant mental health concerns. Sexual prejudice, sexual orientation discrimination, and anti-gay violence are major sources of stress for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Although social support is crucial in coping with stress, anti-gay attitudes and discrimination may make it difficult for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to find such support."
The Ca. Supreme Court: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117)
"It is important to note that being LGBT is not a risk factor in and of itself; however, the minority stressors that LGBT individual encounter - such as discrimination and harassment - are directly associated with suicidal behavior as well as indirectly with risk factors for suicide." (American Association of Suicidology)
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library...
Again, marriage has taken many forms over those thousands of years, including same sex marriages at various times and places. Traditionally, it excluded interracial marriage.
"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others." (In re marriage)
Denying ssm has nothing to do with any of this, since ssm is not what marriage is about....find someone else to lie to...no sale here...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6412 Sep 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
What law in any state says a man can not marry, or a woman can not marry....we 'have' equal laws...
DOMA denies equal treatment under the law to married gay couples. The several states that have changed their constitutions to deny equal rights are another example. Most of us recognize this fact of law. For most of us, the question is whether such legal discrimination is appropriate. Some argue it is, despite the fact there is no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for that denial of equal civil rights.

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6413 Sep 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
If they live 'normal' lives...how can you tell they are gay???
<quoted text>
There are 'many' African American leaders that disagree with all you mentioned above...most African Americans do NOT see this is the same struggle and are offended by gay people attempting to latch on...
It is not the exact same struggle. It is however the same in that it is the quest for equal treatment under the law that has been denied our entire lives. Most people can understand this concept. Those who claim to be offended are simply threatened by the threat to the irrational prejudice they were taught as children. It is harder to maintain that irrational prejudice when it is not supported by the law.

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: "And yet while their story of oppression and injustice is not the same as ours, it is equally valid. African-Americans recognize injustice when we see it. Gays and lesbians have been incarcerated, brutalized, lobotomized, raped, castrated, and robbed of their jobs, families and children."

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6414 Sep 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying ssm has nothing to do with any of this, since ssm is not what marriage is about....find someone else to lie to...no sale here...
Your apparent inability to comprehend the information provided does not change the fact we know for certain denial of marriage equality harms gay people and their children in a wide variety of ways, including but not limited to those previously documented.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6415 Sep 10, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA denies equal treatment under the law to married gay couples. The several states that have changed their constitutions to deny equal rights are another example. Most of us recognize this fact of law. For most of us, the question is whether such legal discrimination is appropriate. Some argue it is, despite the fact there is no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for that denial of equal civil rights.
"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
Haven't you heard...the supreme court has ruled that laws set by the government (like Obamacare) can be discriminatory...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6416 Sep 10, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not the exact same struggle. It is however the same in that it is the quest for equal treatment under the law that has been denied our entire lives. Most people can understand this concept. Those who claim to be offended are simply threatened by the threat to the irrational prejudice they were taught as children. It is harder to maintain that irrational prejudice when it is not supported by the law.
Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: "And yet while their story of oppression and injustice is not the same as ours, it is equally valid. African-Americans recognize injustice when we see it. Gays and lesbians have been incarcerated, brutalized, lobotomized, raped, castrated, and robbed of their jobs, families and children."
Most people understand that being fired from a job or being denied a home has nothing to do with ssm...they are in fact 'very' separate issues...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6417 Sep 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people understand that being fired from a job or being denied a home has nothing to do with ssm...they are in fact 'very' separate issues...
They are still all denial of equal treatment under the law.

Based on a substantial amount of evidence presented, the court found: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117 In re marriage)

The science as well as other court findings agree, denial of marriage equality results in needless harm to real people.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6418 Sep 10, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
They are still all denial of equal treatment under the law.
Based on a substantial amount of evidence presented, the court found: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117 In re marriage)
The science as well as other court findings agree, denial of marriage equality results in needless harm to real people.
You are no more entitled to 'marriage' as polygamists, or incest couples...these 'relationships' don't receive 'equal treatment' either...know why??? Because in the United States, that's not what marriage is.....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6419 Sep 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't you heard...the supreme court has ruled that laws set by the government (like Obamacare) can be discriminatory...
It appears you now concede marriage is a fundamental civil right, as firmly established through case law.

The only question remaining is whether it is acceptable to deny equal rights. The constitution allows denial of equal rights when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest for doing so can be demonstrated. The problem for those who support marriage discrimination is that there is no such compelling and legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights to same sex couples.

"This court simply cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit." (Gill v OPM)

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6420 Sep 10, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you now concede marriage is a fundamental civil right, as firmly established through case law.
It appears you just took a shot of heroine....
The only question remaining is whether it is acceptable to deny equal rights. The constitution allows denial of equal rights when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest for doing so can be demonstrated. The problem for those who support marriage discrimination is that there is no such compelling and legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights to same sex couples.
"This court simply cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit." (Gill v OPM)
It's 'acceptable'...since ssm is not defined by the federal government or the constitution as 'marriage'....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6421 Sep 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You are no more entitled to 'marriage' as polygamists, or incest couples...these 'relationships' don't receive 'equal treatment' either...know why??? Because in the United States, that's not what marriage is.....
The reason incest and polygamy are not allowed is that there are legitimate, demonstrable, and compelling governmental interests sufficient for denial of those arrangements. Incest has been scientifically proven to be harmful in a wide variety of ways. Polygamy has also been demonstrated to result in unfairness and social instability in many ways including but not limited to the fact it results in rich, older men having many wives, leaving none for those who are younger and less well off. Both also decrease genetic diversity rather than expanding it, which is clearly not good for the species.

Neither of these frequently offered excuses constitute any scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of marriage equality to otherwise qualified gay couples.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6423 Sep 10, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you just took a shot of heroine....
<quoted text>
It's 'acceptable'...since ssm is not defined by the federal government or the constitution as 'marriage'....
While neither hero nor heroine, I had hoped to enlighten you to the legal reality of case law. Unfortunately, it now appears your denial of the reality of case law remains intact.

Marriage of any form is not defined by the constitution. It is defined by the 3 branches of government through legislation and case law, as allowed by the constitution. Some of those have defined it in ways that include same sex couples. The question now is whether the federal government can deny equal recognition to those legal marriages performed in states and countries that recognize them. Again, it can if it had a compelling and legitimate interest, but no such interest exists.

"In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6424 Sep 10, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
...Oh and what a happy end for Mr. Wilde, don't you think?...
Oscar Wilde probably shouldn't have sued his boyfriend's father for alienation of affection. Bad legal decisions aside, he has two sons.

Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6425 Sep 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Oscar Wilde probably shouldn't have sued his boyfriend's father for alienation of affection. Bad legal decisions aside, he has two sons.
Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law.
So, if Oscar Wilde had married Bosie, he would not have needed to sue for defamation. Again, the problems go back to you homophobes always trying to squeeze others into boxes that don't fit.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#6426 Sep 10, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason incest and polygamy are not allowed is that there are legitimate, demonstrable, and compelling governmental interests sufficient for denial of those arrangements. Incest has been scientifically proven to be harmful in a wide variety of ways. Polygamy has also been demonstrated to result in unfairness and social instability in many ways including but not limited to the fact it results in rich, older men having many wives, leaving none for those who are younger and less well off. Both also decrease genetic diversity rather than expanding it, which is clearly not good for the species.
Neither of these frequently offered excuses constitute any scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of marriage equality to otherwise qualified gay couples.
Not to the people that participate in them...just like ssm isn't harmful in your eyes....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
what do you call six million burned corpses? 2 min 2 Dogs 24
Can not handle the truth 5 min 2 Dogs 14
Mitt Romney: Another over rated White boy. (May '12) 10 min Kato 1,144
Trump ~ BLAME the DEMS!! 15 min Kato 17
White men are the solution for the single black... 30 min The Power Of Mast... 145
White Crime: Few Comments (Sep '09) 34 min Kato 3,931
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be on Mt R... 37 min Jax 12
This good ol' boy never meant no harm! 6 hr Ben 2,055
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 12 hr Lori899 1,417
More from around the web