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.

dognes

Masontown, PA

#8427 Nov 30, 2012
youtube.com/watch...
Gay exist and Gay will be legal in all States so get adjusted or dont give attention to Gay Marriages its not turning back now.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8428 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
more legal advice?
I'll pass....
just like all of our friends, we didn't want to bother with it until having kids made it the right thing to do...
but it is funny how divorce does seem to add stability doesn't it? a more stable departure?
Why is then that gays always cite divorce as an instability when it is not?
As you say, clearly it proves a more stable separation than without...
especially for the KIDS!
You didn't answer the questions, did you? So I ask again: In what sense did you live together as a married couple? Room mates with benefits is not a marriage-like arrangement.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8429 Nov 30, 2012
Let's hold a "this time we mean it" vote on Jane doesn't even make a good pretend lawyer.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8430 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
the right to define marriage for themselves.
And the fact remains, the minority is not seeking to deny any equal legal rights to the majority they seek for themselves.

It is the majority who seeks to deny to the minority what they want for themselves. Refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated under the law without demonstrating a legitimate governmental interest is not a right.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8431 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
correct, and it was used as the basis for the statement that marriage is a right...
SKINNER was cited in Loving a marriage case!
Sorry for the all caps but this is the third time:
WHY WOULD A PROCREATION CASE BE CITED IN A MARRIAGE CASE?
I mean you do get that the language from loving that marriage is a fundamental right is taken exactly from skinner right?
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. "
curious they discuss marriage in a pure procreation case (skinner) and sterilization in a pure marriage case, ISN'T IT?
Now lets look at Zablocki:
" As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
The court actually found the right to procreate IMPLIES the right to marry...
its all right there and to me its impossible for to argue the court doesn't treat marriage and procreation TOGETHER!
And lets look at laws against marriage between close relatives?
What is the concern besides procreation?
But there are already laws against incest, why another law related to MARRIAGE that controls PROCREATION?
It's pure delusion to claim the law doesn't link marriage to procreation.
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place." And since gay people can and do procreate, "it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

And yet no federal or state law has ever required the ability or intention to procreate, and those who are sterile and the elderly get married every day. As Turner affirmed, the fundamental right of marriage does not require the ability to procreate or even have sex.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8432 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, the courts that hold against you are bigoted and ignorant.
good luck with that.
given gay relationships ARE different (not better or worse) it is rational to treat them differently.
Pejorative terminology intended to mischaracterize and demean my assertions fails to address the issues that have been found by subsequent courts to be without merit.

Each individual marriage is different from any other. You fail to show how all same sex marriages are different from all opposite sex marriages.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8433 Nov 30, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Let's hold a "this time we mean it" vote on Jane doesn't even make a good pretend lawyer.
you are so sad.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8434 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And the fact remains, the minority is not seeking to deny any equal legal rights to the majority they seek for themselves.
you each seek the right to define marriage as you wish.

you each have valid reasons to do so.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8435 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship "

And yet no federal or state law has ever required the ability or intention to procreate,
Because there is precedent on that precise issue:
"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."
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8436 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Pejorative terminology intended to mischaracterize and demean my assertions fails to address the issues that have been found by subsequent courts to be without merit.
that IS what you said. That the court was guided by animosity towards gays that no longer exists...

I challenge that and claim you use that as a cover against arguments you cannot dispute.

One thing I will say is that is is VERY VERY unlikely the scotus will ever find all opposition to you is prejudice...
because its simply not true.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8437 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but do you catch that they always discuss them together?
Mentioning them together still DOESN'T mean they go hand in hand.......just that both are considered FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS that can not be infringed upon.......and it doesn't specify that these cases are only for straight people or couples!!!!

I'm sure you'll disagree......but that's nothing new!!!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8438 Nov 30, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Mentioning them together still DOESN'T mean they go hand in hand.......just that both are considered FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS that can not be infringed upon.......and it doesn't specify that these cases are only for straight people or couples!!!!
I'm sure you'll disagree......but that's nothing new!!!
maybe once, but in every case?
one case even saying the right to procreate IMPLIES the right o marry!!!!
that's a lot more than mere mention together!

A fundamental right is one we hold that was never ceded to govt.

How can we have one as to a GOVERNMENT LICENSE?

We can't.

BUT, to the extent marriage relates to that right, the govt has to back off...
that is how procreation IMPLIES a right to marriage...

The main point is that bringing up procreation is not bigotry, its acknowledging the legal reality...

and again, banning marriage between close relatives?
Why?
Is there any reason to do so with gay couples?
no.

See, different, not better or worse, but different and so its rational to treat each relationship differently...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8439 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you each seek the right to define marriage as you wish.
you each have valid reasons to do so.
Only one denies equal legal rights to the other.

There is no valid reason to deny equal treatment, while the reasons to treat everyone equally are numerous and well established in science and law.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8440 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that IS what you said. That the court was guided by animosity towards gays that no longer exists...
I challenge that and claim you use that as a cover against arguments you cannot dispute.
One thing I will say is that is is VERY VERY unlikely the scotus will ever find all opposition to you is prejudice...
because its simply not true.
Again, prejudice does not require animus or bigotry: "Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Yet all of the reasons offered to deny equality rely on some level of prejudice.(as defined above)

Again, the court need not determine prejudice is the motivation for denial of equality. All they need to do is acknowledge there is no legitimate connection between the stated purposes of the law and the actual effects of the law.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8441 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there is precedent on that precise issue:
"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."
An argument rejected by subsequent courts. It require denial of the reality that gay people are raising children, and harming those families does nothing to strengthen straight families.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8442 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Only one denies equal legal rights to the other.
Only one side believes they are ENTITLED...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8443 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Again, the court need not determine prejudice is the motivation for denial of equality.
they wont because its not. But that doesn't stop you guys from saying it does it?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8444 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
An argument rejected by subsequent courts. It require denial of the reality that gay people are raising children, and harming those families does nothing to strengthen straight families.
no it has not been,and no it doesnt.
I get how you have to take it that way...

but look at it this way:

"Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other."

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

clearly they are aware you have kids, but gays can CHOOSE how and when to have kids...that's a BIG difference that is rational to acknowledge...

as is:
"The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule--some children who never know their fathers, or their [*360] mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes--but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

they are aware of you, but its rational to want a kid to have BOTH a MOM and DAD.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8445 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe once, but in every case?
one case even saying the right to procreate IMPLIES the right o marry!!!!
that's a lot more than mere mention together!
A fundamental right is one we hold that was never ceded to govt.
How can we have one as to a GOVERNMENT LICENSE?
We can't.
BUT, to the extent marriage relates to that right, the govt has to back off...
that is how procreation IMPLIES a right to marriage...
The main point is that bringing up procreation is not bigotry, its acknowledging the legal reality...
and again, banning marriage between close relatives?
Why?
Is there any reason to do so with gay couples?
no.
See, different, not better or worse, but different and so its rational to treat each relationship differently...
None of the 14 Supreme Court cases that establish and affirm marriage as a fundamental right state that right depends on the ability to procreate, and some even note procreation is none of the governments business. Turner even affirms marriage is a fundamental right even when people cannot possibly procreate.

And again, this ignores the fact gay people can and do procreate and are raising children. Harming those families does nothing to encourage procreation among straight people nor does it provide any other benefits to straight couples. It only harms gay families for no legitimate governmental reason.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8446 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Yet all of the reasons offered to deny equality rely on some level of prejudice.(as defined above)
Its not prejudice that you could NEEVR provide both a mom and dad..
its the truth!

Its not prejudice that you are not baby makers together...its REALITY!

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min FYVM 1,395,652
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 4 min Moses 32,671
My Observation of Whites: They have totally Los... 16 min Tom 9
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 20 min Moses 136,045
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 27 min TranshumanX 46,470
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 1 hr True Judgement 2,083
The Moors, Egyptians and Phoenicians were not b... (Jun '14) 1 hr The Reality 1,613
Do you understand 4 hr Truth Hurts 28
News Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead 9 hr barefoot2626 93
5 stabbed @ white nationalist trump rally 9 hr Fukanig 88
More from around the web