Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9647 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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8556 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Every time someone tries to prove there is something wrong with gay parenting, they fail. So you just ignore all the studies.
I dont think there is anything WRONG with gay parenting?
Why do you take the negative inference of everything people say?

Both gendered parents is OPTIMUM, that says next to nothing about gays...
Saying the Beatles were the best group of all time doesn't mean the kinks stink!

and again, when the studies are so poor as to be loaded they are easy to dismiss...

I'm not taking a stand on the therapy, but we both know of a case where a woman went from lesbian to strict catholic and she took her child with her!

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8557 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I dont think there is anything WRONG with gay parenting?
Why do you take the negative inference of everything people say?
Both gendered parents is OPTIMUM, that says next to nothing about gays...
Saying the Beatles were the best group of all time doesn't mean the kinks stink!
and again, when the studies are so poor as to be loaded they are easy to dismiss...
But you do seek to harm those children that are being raised by same-sex parents by denying them the right to have legally married parents and have them take advantage of all the rights, and yes obligations, of civil marriage. The very fact that gays and lesbians were raising children was one of the reasons that the Massachusetts SJC gave for mandating civil marriage equality, Goodridge (2003).

This argument has nothing to do with 'optimal families'. The argument has everything to do with REAL FAMILIES!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8558 Dec 4, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But you do seek to harm those children that are being raised by same-sex parents by denying them the right to have legally married parents
children?
i thought there was no relation between children and marriage?
are you suggesting there is one?

wouldn't the same justification also be true of polygamy?

yet we ban it...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8559 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Every time someone tries to prove there is something wrong with gay parenting, they fail. So you just ignore all the studies.
I don't particularly like the California legislature's action regarding reparative therapy. I believe, however, that the legislature's conclusions will be confirmed at trial. Basically, the judge stayed enforcement of the law until the courts have an opportunity to hear evidence supporting the law.
It's too bad rational basis arguments aren't subject to such careful review in general.
If the judge wants to strike down the law, he should do it based on parental prerogatives. If he does it on the basis that reparative therapy causes no harm, his decision will probably not survive the Ninth Circuit review.
The Judge also only blocked it's enforcement with regards to the 3 Plaintiffs and no one else!!!

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8560 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but the federal court did didn't they?
"Under such a rational basis standard, the Gill plaintiffs cannot prevail. Consider only one of the several justifications for DOMA offered by Congress itself, namely, that broadening the definition of marriage will reduce tax revenues and increase social security payments. This is the converse of the very advantages that the Gill plaintiffs are seeking, and Congress could rationally have believed that DOMA would reduce costs, even if newer studies of the actual economic effects of DOMA suggest that it may in fact raise costs for the federal government."
in case you attack the court:
"The federal defendants conceded that rational basis review leaves DOMA intact but now urge this court to employ the so-called intermediate scrutiny test used by Supreme Court for gender discrimination. Some similarity exists between the two situations along with some differences, compare Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 682-88 (1973)(plurality opinion)(describing criteria for categorization). But extending intermediate scrutiny to sexual preference classifications is not a step open to us."
So the court adds a little federalism "rational basis with teeth"
(Please note that the federalism issue is not present in the state cases namely Prop 8!)
"Although our decision discusses equal protection and federalism concerns separately, it concludes that governing precedents under both heads combine--not to create some new category of "heightened scrutiny" for DOMA under a prescribed algorithm, but rather to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage. Our decision then tests the rationales offered for DOMA, taking account of Supreme Court precedent limiting which rationales can be counted and of the force of certain rationales."
Love that nod to Baker in the last sentence?
I do.
the language you cited was literally overruled by the above...
and this specifically:
"Second, to create such a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. That such a classification could overturn marriage laws in a huge majority of individual states underscores the implications."
And yet the court upheld the finding DOMA is unconstitutional. They used the minimum required.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8561 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
yup. but none of what you said speaks to the fact that optimally, a mom and dad is best...
Fundamental rights don't depend on what you believe is best. They include everyone, not just those who live in your version of Utopia.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8562 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamental rights don't depend on what you believe is best. They include everyone, not just those who live in your version of Utopia.
now apply this to the right to an abortion and see if it flies...

so the right is cut off at exactly the time we think is best, right?
(so the majority/societal standards decide this?)

and it is only a woman's right, yes?
(with the 14th amendment and all, but i thought we had EQUAL RIGHTS)

and it is based on her procreational abilities that differ from a man yes?
(so our physical abilities can be the basis for FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?)

so how do you figure?

Yes, what wins the DOMA cases is a strong sense that the states should be allowed to dictate for themselves...
as 32 have dictated against you and 6 have for you...

I am fine with that, are you?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8563 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont think there is anything WRONG with gay parenting?
Okay, let's say "inferior." You keep making that assertion, but you have no facts or studies to back you up.

About the worst argument you make is "everybody knows... " I was trained as a mathematician. My hair stands on end and I immediately triple check the veracity of any such arguments.
Why do you take the negative inference of everything people say?
Both gendered parents is OPTIMUM, that says next to nothing about gays...
Saying the Beatles were the best group of all time doesn't mean the kinks stink!
And yet, you wouldn't say that the government should provide incentives to the Beatles that it denies to the Kinks.(But maybe you have something against Lola. I don't know.] Yet you suggest it is appropriate to deny gay and lesbian families the same benefits that other families--no matter how capable or dysfunctional--take for granted.
and again, when the studies are so poor as to be loaded they are easy to dismiss...
Yeah yeah yeah. And there's no proof that the climate is getting warmer nor that the earth is 4 billion years old. If you don't want to believe science, you never will.
I'm not taking a stand on the therapy, but we both know of a case where a woman went from lesbian to strict catholic and she took her child with her!
I'm not sure which case you are referring to. We've often discussed the Miller-Jenkins affair. In that particular case, Miller claims she was never a lesbian, but was convinced by therapists that she was lesbian.

I actually think Miller's version of her sexuality is close to the truth. What is left out is that she experienced a life of abusive relationships, drugs, and despair. I find it unsurprising that she might have been uncomfortabe with men as her recovery began and that she might have taken great comfort from the company of a caring woman. All of this is, of course, entirely speculative.

Just as I know many gays who spent large portions of their lives living as heterosexual, I believe there are a few heterosexuals who behave homosexually for reasons other than their natural orientation.(It's really the law of large numbers. In a world as complex and random as the one we live in, all the variations are bound to happen in greater or smaller numbers.) Of course, one should never dismiss that bisexuals often reject part of their sexuality later in life, nor should we dismiss hormonal changes.

So I find such anecdotal evidence exceptional, rather than persuasive. Moreover, I don't necessarily think heterosexuals need help recovering their natural heterosexual orientation. They may, instead, need help recovering from problems of trust and esteem that resulted from prior bad experience. Aversion therapy is unlikely to be helpful for confused, scared people.

At the end of the day, however, it's important to recognize that there are no absolutes. But there is no reason anyone should ever be told that mutual attractions to other adults are bad or inappropriate. They should instead be taught to make sure they enter into mutually constructive relationships--whoever they may be attracted to.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8564 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
now apply this to the right to an abortion and see if it flies...
so the right is cut off at exactly the time we think is best, right?
(so the majority/societal standards decide this?)
and it is only a woman's right, yes?
(with the 14th amendment and all, but i thought we had EQUAL RIGHTS)
and it is based on her procreational abilities that differ from a man yes?
(so our physical abilities can be the basis for FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?)
so how do you figure?
Yes, what wins the DOMA cases is a strong sense that the states should be allowed to dictate for themselves...
as 32 have dictated against you and 6 have for you...
I am fine with that, are you?
Abortion and marriage are two separate things, yet that right applies to everyone equally. You have the right to get one, just not the need. That may someday change.

Fundamental rights can be restricted when a substantial, legitimate governmental interest for doing so can be demonstrated in a court of law. No such legitimate interest can be demonstrated for denial of marriage equality.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8565 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, let's say "inferior."
lets not since its a loaded phrase...
lets say ALL Other things being equal having both a mom and dad is optimum...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
We've often discussed the Miller-Jenkins affair. In that particular case, Miller claims she was never a lesbian, but was convinced by therapists that she was lesbian.
I actually think Miller's version of her sexuality is close to the truth. What is left out is that she experienced a life of abusive relationships, drugs, and despair. I find it unsurprising that she might have been uncomfortabe with men as her recovery began and that she might have taken great comfort from the company of a caring woman. All of this is, of course, entirely speculative.
Just as I know many gays who spent large portions of their lives living as heterosexual, I believe there are a few heterosexuals who behave homosexually for reasons other than their natural orientation.(It's really the law of large numbers. In a world as complex and random as the one we live in, all the variations are bound to happen in greater or smaller numbers.) Of course, one should never dismiss that bisexuals often reject part of their sexuality later in life, nor should we dismiss hormonal changes.
So I find such anecdotal evidence exceptional, rather than persuasive. Moreover, I don't necessarily think heterosexuals need help recovering their natural heterosexual orientation. They may, instead, need help recovering from problems of trust and esteem that resulted from prior bad experience. Aversion therapy is unlikely to be helpful for confused, scared people.
At the end of the day, however, it's important to recognize that there are no absolutes. But there is no reason anyone should ever be told that mutual attractions to other adults are bad or inappropriate. They should instead be taught to make sure they enter into mutually constructive relationships--whoever they may be attracted to.
I agree with every word you wrote here...
but it in denying absolutes you make some suggestions that if they came from me would light this board on fire....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8566 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
lets not since its a loaded phrase...
lets say ALL Other things being equal having both a mom and dad is optimum...
You can say that, but you cannot support it. But let's explore the symantics: If one situation is optimal, then what is any other situation if not inferior? Or is it possible that there is more than one optimal situation?

But this "all other things equal" is really a silly argument. All other things equal, wouldn't it be better to be raised in a rich household than a poor household? Yet it would be bad public policy to discourage less-advantaged families.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8567 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
children?
i thought there was no relation between children and marriage?
are you suggesting there is one?
wouldn't the same justification also be true of polygamy?
yet we ban it...
You have obviously never read the Goodridge decision. I once again provide you with a link

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gayma...

I'll try to explain again. What the Massachusetts SJC found was a right of the children to have married parents. It was not a right of the parents to be married and have children, but a right of the children to have married parents. The court found that the legal harm was to the children, a scenario that you seek to perpetuate. And to make sure you don't have any misunderstanding, the court did not find any harm to the child having same-sex parents. The harm to the child was solely in the fact that the state sought to deny those parents the ability to legally marry.

This was only one of the reasons given by the court when they rendered their decision. But because you keep harping on what is 'optimal' for the children, this, as one of its reasons, is most germane.

“You wish you were here!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

The OC

#8568 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it." Oscar Wilde
Wilde was a well known degenerate. Probably your hero? Thanks for posting.

Level 5

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#8569 Dec 4, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
Wilde was a well known degenerate. Probably your hero? Thanks for posting.
Your a degenerate and a loser.

“You wish you were here!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

The OC

#8570 Dec 4, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a degenerate and a loser.
Oh come on now. You don't even know me. If you are going to throw insults make sure they have some substance to them. Otherwise it's just boring.

“You wish you were here!!”

Level 1

Since: May 09

The OC

#8571 Dec 4, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
You have obviously never read the Goodridge decision. I once again provide you with a link
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gayma...
I'll try to explain again. What the Massachusetts SJC found was a right of the children to have married parents. It was not a right of the parents to be married and have children, but a right of the children to have married parents. The court found that the legal harm was to the children, a scenario that you seek to perpetuate. And to make sure you don't have any misunderstanding, the court did not find any harm to the child having same-sex parents. The harm to the child was solely in the fact that the state sought to deny those parents the ability to legally marry.
This was only one of the reasons given by the court when they rendered their decision. But because you keep harping on what is 'optimal' for the children, this, as one of its reasons, is most germane.
We sure do live in an upside down world now don't we? We have those amongst us who believe we need to legalize gay marriage because its better for the children? Insane.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Level 5

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#8572 Dec 4, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
Oh come on now. You don't even know me. If you are going to throw insults make sure they have some substance to them. Otherwise it's just boring.
I don't need to. Your posts alone is all I need to know.
WaterBoarder wrote:
We sure do live in an upside down world now don't we? We have those amongst us who believe we need to legalize gay marriage because its better for the children? Insane.
Or maybe it's because everyone deserves equal rights. Insane concept, right?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8573 Dec 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
How does your wife feel about your lack of support for her right as a citizen to equal protection under the law, simply because she is female? Where in the constitution does it create a special class for women, with restricted civil and legal rights based on their gender, alone?[
The 14th Amendment gives everyone equal protection under the law but it explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.

Recognizing gender differences doesn't make one gender subjugated under the other.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8574 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
At the end of the day, however, it's important to recognize that there are no absolutes. But there is no reason anyone should ever be told that mutual attractions to other adults are bad or inappropriate. They should instead be taught to make sure they enter into mutually constructive relationships--whoever they may be attracted to.
Amen!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8575 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
now apply this to the right to an abortion and see if it flies...
......
Abortion and marriage are not comparable. At least compare apples to other apples.

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
White Men are Ugly 1 min A Perm For BM 17
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,521,635
Why do all black women love Justin Timberlake? 3 min SlayWithTheTruth 16
Black british vs afro-americans? (Mar '11) 5 min diversity 522
why are mexican women jealous of black women (Feb '13) 7 min Dumb dumb 13
SlayWithTheTruth = Melanin_Fail 9 min SlayWithTheTruth 20
Being political correct=Uncle Sam 14 min Justsaying 1
NEGROES -- what would be your preferred method... 1 hr SlayWithTheTruth 36
Thank you white people for the Internet 1 hr SlayWithTheTruth 23
'Happy Days' actress Erin Moran DEAD 2 hr The Power Of Mast... 19
IRBW And Their Fantasies. 3 hr Ben 596
More from around the web