Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Skanner

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.

Comments
6,221 - 6,240 of 9,656 Comments Last updated Nov 19, 2013

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Level 1

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6687
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Your father and step mother gave you something no same sex couple could have given; a mother and father.
.
<quoted text>I believe in gender diverse marriage with the perfect affirmative action ratio of male/female. Gender segregation marriage would harm society.
.
<quoted text>Are you proposing some sort of fertility test for marriage? How would that work? Who would pay for those tests? What if the tests were wrong?
I believe in a right to privacy; if you want to live with someone of the same sex, that's your business; I don't want to know. Married couples have a right to privacy about their reproductive choice.
.
<quoted text>I disagree, traditional marriage is more like "mom and dad".
.
<quoted text>Marriage provides a sanctioned bed for sexual relations and a stable home for the children of that union.
a sanctioned bed for sexual relations? that's got to be one of the funniest things that you've ever said.

a 55 chevy stationwagon does as much

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6688
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
psst you are seeking a GAY marriage...
nothing to ask...
?
You make no sense.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6689
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Your father and step mother gave you something no same sex couple could have given; a mother and father.
.
Circular "reasoning".
A same sex male couple could give a child something no opposite sex couple can give: two fathers.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I believe in gender diverse marriage with the perfect affirmative action ratio of male/female. Gender segregation marriage would harm society.
How?
Give us something specific, b!tch. Not just your fear mongering.

.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Are you proposing some sort of fertility test for marriage? How would that work? Who would pay for those tests? What if the tests were wrong?
No stupid, you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
Brian_G wrote:
I believe in a right to privacy; if you want to live with someone of the same sex, that's your business; I don't want to know. Married couples have a right to privacy about their reproductive choice.
.
<quoted text>I disagree, traditional marriage is more like "mom and dad".
.
<quoted text>Marriage provides a sanctioned bed for sexual relations and a stable home for the children of that union.
Rose's Law...

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6690
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lawrence wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am very much for equal rights and you're NOT answering my question. I'm merely trying to understand where you see equal rights being denied to a segment of the population.
Women are a segment of the population, right??
Men have a right to marry women. Women are being denied that right.
Men are a segment of the population, right?
Well, women have a right to marry men. Men are being denied that right.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6691
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes you did.
You think polygamy being denied is not an equal right issue don't you?
be honest, and explain why...
Post a link to a post where I argued against polygamy, or admit you are a lying sack of crap and apologize to me.
I'll save you time. I've never argued against polygamy. You are a lying sack of crap.
Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6692
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
psst the law limits marriage to a man and woman...
same sex is a DIFFERENT ISSUE....
No, it's not, stupid.
Limiting marriage to man and woman give a man a right a woman doesn't have, and a woman a right a man doesn't have.
A denial of equal protection.
Jane Dough wrote:
nope, it just recognizes the very real reality that procreation between the spouses can never occur with gays...its true and a rational distinction...
Non-issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Too bad you did procreate.
Jane Dough wrote:
nope. I don't think so, courts don't think so, and especially BLACKS don't think so.
I'm black, I think so.
Jane Dough wrote:
I mean there was that SLAVERY thing...and you don't get a tax break...boo hoo...
don't forget, you are free to love, live and boink anyone you want...this is merely about MONEY.
and don't give me the medical care crap...a free HIPAA form...
it boils down to MONEY...
nothing more.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's just about money. Well, stupid, that's a legitimate concern.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6693
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, and they found the wife has an interest in him procreatijg as his WIFE...
know that quote you LOVE about marriage being fundamental to the existence of our race? psst, its from SKINNER....
Skinner v Oklahoma wasn't about marriage. It was about using forced sterilization as a punishment for crime.
Is there some law against idiots like you learning the difference between "its" and "it's"?
Jane Dough wrote:
show me where....
actually, in the real world where the rest of us live the contrary is true..imagine that!
Where does the Constitution say we (US citizens) should all have equal protection under the law? You really don't know!? You are really THAT stupid!?
Well, like I say, you are good for a laugh.
Lawrence

Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6694
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Women are a segment of the population, right??
Men have a right to marry women. Women are being denied that right.
Men are a segment of the population, right?
Well, women have a right to marry men. Men are being denied that right.
You are very confused.

Any man has the right to marry any woman and any woman has the right to marry any man.

What you are proposing is the redefinition and, perversion if you will, of marriage which has been between a man and woman for centuries, since the dawn of man. And this is in all cultures worldwide.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6695
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lawrence wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very confused.
Any man has the right to marry any woman and any woman has the right to marry any man.
But a man can't marry any man, so he's being denied a right a woman has. And a woman can't marry any woman, so she is being denied a right a man has.

Why are you against equal rights?
Lawrence wrote:
What you are proposing is the redefinition and, perversion if you will, of marriage which has been between a man and woman for centuries, since the dawn of man. And this is in all cultures worldwide.
Appealing to tradition and popularity.
Both logically fallacies.
I take it you're not too big on logic.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6696
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Google Skinner v Oklahoma and tell me how I went in a time machine to the 1940's just to deny gay marriage now...
ALL that's EVERY SINGLE ONE of the US Supreme Court case son marriage tie it to procreation...
here's a little lesson for you..
a "fundamental right" is one we have outside of govt. They are rights we held an NEVER authorized govt to touch...
like making babies?
you seem to think we have such a right to GOV'T RECOGNITION which is what a marriage license IS...
when in reality, because we breeders have a right to breed, and many of us chose a marital relationship in which to do so, that is the basis for any Constitutional protection over marriage...
liberty or freedom is the right o be free from govt which you do not have to GOVT RECOGNITION.
You have liberty to live with, love, and boink whomever you like...
but not to a LICENSE issued by the state.
You are no more being discriminated against then a person who doesn't attend school is for not getting a student loan.
that you claim I said you are not capable to love or commit means you completely misunderstand...
I didn't (and wouldn't) say that.
Is love and commitment RELATED to marriage?
Of course, right? But yet its not REQUIRED of a marriage...
how do you jibe that with your REQUIREMENT stance on procreation?
AND supposed we added a whole group of specific HYPOTHETICAL people who could not love or commit and allowed them as a group to marry...
would that diminish what a marriage is even though neither love or commitment is REQUIRED?
Yes my dear. Skinner proves that fundamental rights are important including the right of a couple to get married and procreate. You are being silly again.
Lawrence

Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6697
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
But a man can't marry any man, so he's being denied a right a woman has. And a woman can't marry any woman, so she is being denied a right a man has.
Why are you against equal rights?
<quoted text>
Appealing to tradition and popularity.
Both logically fallacies.
I take it you're not too big on logic.
I ask you what time it is and you answer "it's raining". Then you'll throw in one of your canned stupid phrases about Rose's Law. You're pathetic.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6698
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lawrence wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask you what time it is and you answer "it's raining". Then you'll throw in one of your canned stupid phrases about Rose's Law. You're pathetic.
IOW, you can't counter my arguments.
Why are you against equal rights?

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6699
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Look I was fine when gays were saying they are living the life style that they choose and I understand every person has a right to live how they please (Within reason of course) as long as it doesn't negatively impact those around them.

But as the old adage goes, give them an inch... they take a mile. And here we are. Yesterday it was just leave us be and we'll leave you be. Now we all have to pledge to support this lie that it's not by choice that you are gay but we also must destroy the sanctity of a bond between a man and a woman.

Marriage between a man and a woman was SUPPOSED to be the standard by which we all aspired to.

Marriage stood as a reminder that WE man and woman need each other. Now the rules have changed. Those in academia, and those from wealthy back grounds have bonded together to once again flaunt and flex their social power in the faces of the world.

This time it's to teach people that you can be born with a genetic disposition which prevents you from liking someone of the opposite sex. And this is the bases of why we MUST let gays marry each other.

It's woven into their genetics... This lie, is no different than the one that says blacks are genetically stronger, or whites are genetically smarter.

It's about arrogance. It's proving a certain sect of the human race can force the world to adopt their belief whether imagined or real.

Stating the obvious about mammals, "nature designed male and female to need each other in order to reproduce and populate the earth."

Now what? Is this supposed to be the next step in evolution?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6700
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eriq Barrington wrote:
Marriage between a man and a woman was SUPPOSED to be the standard by which we all aspired to.
Marriage stood as a reminder that WE man and woman need each other.
This time it's to teach people that you can be born with a genetic disposition which prevents you from liking someone of the opposite sex. And this is the bases of why we MUST let gays marry each other.
It's woven into their genetics... This lie, is no different than the one that says blacks are genetically stronger, or whites are genetically smarter.
It's about arrogance. It's proving a certain sect of the human race can force the world to adopt their belief whether imagined or real.
Stating the obvious about mammals, "nature designed male and female to need each other in order to reproduce and populate the earth."
Now what? Is this supposed to be the next step in evolution?
How is the marriage of a man and woman truly being affected by my marriage to another woman?

Marriage has NOTHING to do with the ability to procreate.....this seems to be something that most just can't grasp and I'm not sure why!!!

Heterosexual couples WILL continue to populate the planet, allowing or not allowing Gay and Lesbian couples the right to marry WON'T change that.

Gays and Lesbians will also CONTINUE to populate the planet.........just not the same way!!!

You are not required to accept or approve of who I am or who I want to marry or who I am married to.......I don't need to ask your permission, nor do you need my permission to marry the PERSON of your choosing!!!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6701
Sep 19, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its the law of our nation that marriage is between a MAN AND WOMAN...
it is the law of 44 states as well...
so that alone is reason to deny you rights under your "logic"...
society has no interest in encouraging gays as the court citation explained...
rational and legit...
gays can choose to be stable BEFORE they CHOOSE to have kids....straight DO NOT have that luxury...
we have laws forbidding marriag ebetwen close raltives...should that apply to GAYS TOO?
WHY?
there is NO FEAR of inbreeding is there?
so an exception for gays then?
see how its not the same?
of course not...
stick to your emopty readings of the EP clause...
2 other cited for you:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
yours isn't even an "argument" but a mere "rhetorical demand" for "abstract symmetry"...in legal language, that's not good.
here's the other one:
"The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization.
Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring),.
In other words, saying we should promote Led Zeppelin is not saying The Who sucks...
But the thing is your court citation spoke of the State Legislature.

The State Legislature, which by the way expresses the will of the people under our system of government, followed Federal law and decided to pass SSM laws in their state.

You LIE every time you claim one man one woman is the law of the land. You twist reality with that claim.

This may come as a shock to you but Federal Law ALLOWS SSM. It's commonly know as the Defense of Marriage Act.

So to state that marriage is one man one woman and it's the law of the land ignores a great deal of what is written in the law.

Much like you do with the U.S. Constitution.

So don't blame me when you're wrong.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6702
Sep 19, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>

gays can choose to be stable BEFORE they CHOOSE to have kids....straight DO NOT have that luxury...
Are you serious? Like I asked before what the heck are you smoking?

Now you are claiming only gays can be stable before the couple has a child and straights can't?

You don't know very many responsible straight people do you?

Good lord just thinking about your statement makes me wonder all sorts of things about the two parents you had raise you.

LMAO!

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6703
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eriq Barrington wrote:
Look I was fine when gays were saying they are living the life style that they choose and I understand every person has a right to live how they please (Within reason of course) as long as it doesn't negatively impact those around them.
But as the old adage goes, give them an inch... they take a mile. And here we are. Yesterday it was just leave us be and we'll leave you be. Now we all have to pledge to support this lie that it's not by choice that you are gay but we also must destroy the sanctity of a bond between a man and a woman.
LOL! How does gay marriage effect the "sanctity" of the bond between a man and a woman? Do "gay rays" emanate from gay married couples, turning all straight couples into infidels?
Eriq Barrington wrote:
Marriage between a man and a woman was SUPPOSED to be the standard by which we all aspired to.
Well, nothing proves an argument like using the caps lock key.
Eriq Barrington wrote:
Marriage stood as a reminder that WE man and woman need each other. Now the rules have changed. Those in academia, and those from wealthy back grounds have bonded together to once again flaunt and flex their social power in the faces of the world.
This time it's to teach people that you can be born with a genetic disposition which prevents you from liking someone of the opposite sex. And this is the bases of why we MUST let gays marry each other.
Actually, it's a simple equal rights issue.
A man has the right to marry a woman, a woman should have that same right.
A woman has the right to marry a man, a man should have that same right.
Why are you against equal rights?
That's very unAmerican of you.
Eriq Barrington wrote:
It's woven into their genetics... This lie, is no different than the one that says blacks are genetically stronger, or whites are genetically smarter.
It's about arrogance. It's proving a certain sect of the human race can force the world to adopt their belief whether imagined or real.
Stating the obvious about mammals, "nature designed male and female to need each other in order to reproduce and populate the earth."
Now what? Is this supposed to be the next step in evolution?
Many mammals have same sex sex.
http://youtu.be/sTXabN1pnZY

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6704
Sep 19, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so, by analogy, we are all equally allowed to marry the opposite sex and not the same sex..
nope. Only those 44 States that you want to have change their laws to allow bigamy and polygamy while keeping SSM illegal..

Here's where you fail when dealing with RnL.

Her marriage is not an analogy. It's a FACT!

So for you to claim that marriage laws are all equal is, and people of the same sex can't get legally married is, well to put it bluntly, stupidly asinine!

Level 1

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6705
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

You do know that gays have been marrying women for centuries. That charade has always gone on. Then there's the men who suddenly realize they were a woman all along, get a sex change, while still married to a women. Now the kids have two mommies. I don't find sexual orientation or preference the same as civil rights. Gays do not suffer like blacks who were barred from restaurants, stores, and could only have menial jobs. Most people don't even know someone is gay unless they make a lot noise which is happening a lot lately.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe you people say that, and then have the juevos to talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. Send your sister or daughter over for me to marry. I'm sure she would LOVE to marry a man that is not attracted to her. I'm sure our marriage would demonstrate the "ideal" of two people forced together who have no interest in one another.
Why would you put a gay man with a straight woman? That isn't going to bring happiness to EITHER of them. Marriage needs to be protected from YOU people, before you start bringing back ARRANGED marriages.
<quoted text>
They do in 6 US states, the DC, 2 US tribes and about a dozen nations around the world, with more locations joining all the time. You are not the one doing the "combining", so you have no power to tell people what combinations they may pursue.
<quoted text>
Not if you PAID me. The bible is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If I checked the bible, I would find rampant polygamy, concubines, daughters being SOLD to their husbands... that book is NOT a good guide for modern living.
<quoted text>
No, it's because dogs, cats and horses can't sign legal consent forms. Why do you people always have such difficulty distinguishing between animals and humans?
<quoted text>
Gay men belong with gay men, and lesbians belong with lesbians. Any other combinations for them is disrespectful to their humanity (not to mention disrespectful to their mis-matched partner).
<quoted text>
"Sin" is a fantasy concept, unrelated to the real world. Our Constitution doesn't forbid "sin", it doesn't mention it at all. In fact, it gives me the right to IGNORE your religious concepts entirely, and build a life without them.
If you think something is sinful, you're free to avoid it. But nothing gives you the right to make that decision for someone else.
And all of your excuses don't cover up the fact that this is STILL humans mistreating humans for poor, poor reasons.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6706
Sep 19, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
well you are the ones claiming you seek "equality"....that means for all...
you are just "getting yours"!
a lower ground morally...
are you speaking to gays and lesbians or those in black churches who are against this law?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••