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.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10136 Sep 11, 2013
billy wrote:
civil unions are fine, call it what you like. Its not marriage. Sodomy is not legal in Md, so consummating is illegal act. G....
There are no laws against gay folks having sex in MD, Silly One. But by definition, Sodomy is any person of any orientation or gender having oral or anal sex.

Look it up.

If you were right, that would mean that pretty much everyone in the state is committing illegal acts.

Geesh.

Google is your friend - USE IT.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10137 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Then, Russian gays were targeted with anti-speech laws and Christian wedding vendors in Washington, Oregon and New Mexico were targeted for litigation. Same sex marriage creates more problem than it solves.
...
Only for law-breakers.

Don't break the law while running your business, and you aren't as likely to be sued. It's pretty simple.

You don't believe in the rule of law?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10138 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.....
That's why the average person believes in marriage as male/female like it was for mom and dad but the press and liberal politicians believe in this radical change in marriage.
You don't get out much, do you?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10139 Sep 12, 2013
Same sex marriage supporters sue Christian vendors who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies, then justify it by calling them lawbreakers. If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10140 Sep 12, 2013
Public accommodations are widely recognized as a civil right by law.

Equal treatment in public accommodations laws resulted from segregation and apartheid.

We know discrimination causes harm, while treating others as you would yourself does not. While you are free to discriminate against anyone for any reason in your home, church, and private club, there is no excuse for discrimination in the public square.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10141 Sep 13, 2013
Men and women aren't the same; gender equality doesn't exist in the US Constitution. The ERA failed, the states didn't ratify because the majority don't want same sex marriage or a government with the power to ignore gender and treat citizens as if unisex.

It's perfectly constitutional to register 18 year old men for Selective Service but not 18 year old women. It's perfectly Constitutional for states to apply the standard of one man and one woman to marriage.

Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor. See the examples of Christians forced to participate in same sex wedding ceremonies because of PC hate laws.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10142 Sep 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage supporters sue Christian vendors who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies, then justify it by calling them lawbreakers. If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.
What do you call people who break the law, Brian? Besides "Christian", that is?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10143 Sep 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Men and women aren't the same; gender equality doesn't exist in the US Constitution. The ERA failed, the states didn't ratify because the majority don't want same sex marriage or a government with the power to ignore gender and treat citizens as if unisex.
And yet sex has been ruled a quasi-suspect class by SCOTUS under equal protection constitutional law and laws classifying based on sex are subject to intermediate judicial scrutiny.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
It's perfectly constitutional to register 18 year old men for Selective Service but not 18 year old women.
That's because that particular law passes intermediate scrutiny and is therefore constitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
It's perfectly Constitutional for states to apply the standard of one man and one woman to marriage.
No it's not. Besides, the issue is sexual orientation discrimination, not sex discrimination per se.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor. See the examples of Christians forced to participate in same sex wedding ceremonies because of PC hate laws.
The laws you erroneously label "hate laws" are actually anti-discirmination laws that also protect people from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, veterans status, handicapped status and sometimes sexual orientation. So you're saying it's perfectly OK for Christians to discriminate against blacks, Chinese, women, Jews, military veterans and the handicapped in addition to gays. In Brian's view, Christians are above the law and apparently, as a group, the biggest bigots on planet earth.

“What do the stars say......”

Since: May 11

...explore outside the milkway

#10144 Sep 14, 2013
Any gay who would sue a Christian for not participating in same sex marriage ceremonies is going against the amendment that states that it is your freedom to openly practice your own religion.

Go get united by someone who is not Christian, like the justice of peace.

If Christians are being forced to participate in same sex ceremonies then Christians would not be allowed to freely practice their own religion. Most Christians don't believe that two people of the same gender should be together whether it be sexually or marriage, they believe that it should one man for one woman. So why should they be forced to break their beliefs.

“What do the stars say......”

Since: May 11

...explore outside the milkway

#10145 Sep 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws you erroneously label "hate laws" are actually anti-discirmination laws that also protect people from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, veterans status, handicapped status and sometimes sexual orientation. So you're saying it's perfectly OK for Christians to discriminate against blacks, Chinese, women, Jews, military veterans and the handicapped in addition to gays. In Brian's view, Christians are above the law and apparently, as a group, the biggest bigots on planet earth.
This statement is ridiculous.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10146 Sep 14, 2013
Carmiana wrote:
<quoted text>
This statement is ridiculous.
Labeling it "ridiculous" just demonstrates your general ignorance of the law.

If you think Christians should be able to refuse to provide business services to gays in violation of anti-discrimination laws, then it's not much of a stretch to argue they can refuse services to black, Jews or any other group and claim protected "religious beliefs" as justification. After all, many Christians did just that to justify both slavery and segregation.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10147 Sep 15, 2013
The issue isn't slavery and the segragationists all support same sex marriage. Same sex marriage brings a new standard that destroys marriage's perfect affirmative action 1:1 diversity and gender integration in favor of gender segregation. We oppose segregation even when voluntary.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10148 Sep 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
... We oppose segregation even when voluntary.
And your opinions are simply leaves blowing in the wind, since gay folks legally marry in MD.

You must be a blast at parties, when you re-arrange your guests because you don't like them sitting and chatting with people of their own choice. Do you also support open marriages, since you don't feel that people should "segregate" themselves into couples?

Should family bonds be split as well, since you don't want people segregating themselves into solitary family units? How does one go about preventing people form voluntarily segregating themselves into couples, groups, religions, communities, or families?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10149 Sep 15, 2013
Carmiana wrote:
Any gay who would sue a Christian for not participating in same sex marriage ceremonies is going against the amendment that states that it is your freedom to openly practice your own religion.
....
So, it is okay to break the law and refuse service to the public - any part of the public - as long as you believe your religion allows it?

If you were part of some minority group that was disliked, how many stores and businesses would you be willing to be refused service at, before you complained and fought back? How much humiliation would you accept?

"Nope, we don't serve YOUR kind, here. Move along."

Perhaps you would like each store or business to post the types of people they are willing to serve, right on their doors, to prevent such "misunderstandings".

You know, like the old "whites only" signs, or "Men only", or perhaps "No Chinese". Those worked well in the past, didn't they?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10150 Sep 15, 2013
Carmiana wrote:
Any gay who would sue a Christian for not participating in same sex marriage ceremonies is going against the amendment that states that it is your freedom to openly practice your own religion.
Go get united by someone who is not Christian, like the justice of peace.
If Christians are being forced to participate in same sex ceremonies then Christians would not be allowed to freely practice their own religion. Most Christians don't believe that two people of the same gender should be together whether it be sexually or marriage, they believe that it should one man for one woman. So why should they be forced to break their beliefs.
The KKK use the same excuse.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10151 Sep 15, 2013
Nobody invited the KKK to their wedding but same sex marriage supporters are inviting bids from Christian wedding service providers and every news story claims they'll sue you if you decline the bid. The same sex marriage movement is more a racket than politics.

If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10152 Sep 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't slavery and the segragationists all support same sex marriage.
Racial segregationists do not all support same sex marriage. The reality is, most bigots are prejudiced against multiple minority groups.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage brings a new standard that destroys marriage's perfect affirmative action 1:1 diversity and gender integration in favor of gender segregation.
Really? So when were laws passed that prohibited whites from marrying whites, blacks from marrying blacks, Chinese from marrying Chinese, disabled Americans from marrying disabled Americans, veterans from marrying veterans, Jews from marrying Jews and Christians from marrying Christians? Oh that's right, there are no such laws. Brian is merely lying again.

Brian_G wrote:
We oppose segregation even when voluntary.
And yet SCOTUS doesn't consider voluntary segregation illegal. After all in their ruling in Loving v. Virginia that stuck down anti-miscegenation laws, they didn't forbid whites from marrying whites or blacks from marrying blacks;, they ruled it unconstitutional for the government to mandate racial segregation in marriage.

If you oppose "voluntary" segregation, Brian, then you oppose the vast majority of marriages in the US in which the participants share at least one characteristic that is a protected class for purposes of anti-discrimination law.

Why do you oppose how so many American citizens exercise their fundamental right of marriage?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10153 Sep 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nobody invited the KKK to their wedding but same sex marriage supporters are inviting bids from Christian wedding service providers and every news story claims they'll sue you if you decline the bid. The same sex marriage movement is more a racket than politics.
If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Why do you lie, Brian? Are there any reasons besides the fact you're a pathological liar?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10154 Sep 15, 2013
The 19th amendment nullified the gender discrepancy in the 14th amendment. You must ignore the 19th to still find any gender inequality in the 14th.

Both the 5th and 14th amendments require equal protection of the law for all persons.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10156 Sep 16, 2013
The 19th Amendment doesn't mention the 14th Amendment, it gives women the vote, not gender equality. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

September 9, 2013
'Gays' forced to serve Westboro Baptist haters

By J. Matt Barber

At least Oregon is applying its anti-discrimination laws evenhandedly. Interesting story out of Gresham: The Oregonian is reporting that Bruce Bottoms – a homosexual baker and owner of "Cakes By Cupcakes" – has been charged with anti-Christian discrimination by the Oregon Ministry of Human Rights (OMHR). Mr. Bottoms and his partner, Lance Limpkowski, recently declined to bake a cake for the notoriously anti-"gay" Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). As a result, they've been forced to shut down their business.

It seems that, in another tired attempt to be provocative, representatives from the attention-starved WBC demanded that Bottoms and Limpkowski bake a cake for a Westboro fundraiser with the group's trademark slogan, "God Hates Fags," emblazed in rainbow frosting across the top. Mr. Bottoms, who reportedly moonlights as a part-time blogger for the homosexual activist "Human Rights Campaign," was understandably appalled. He refused.

"Look, I'll serve anybody, Christian or otherwise," said Bottoms. "I just refuse to bake a cake that endorses an ideology that I find obscene. If Westboro came in and asked me to bake a birthday cake with the words 'Happy 120th, Papa Freddy,' it'd be my pleasure," he said. "I didn't decline to bake the cake because the customers defined themselves as 'Christian'; I refused because nobody should be forced to lend their talents to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that they find repugnant."....
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/1...

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
Israelite Supremacist - A Day In The Life 1 min No_Watermelon_4_U 11
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Reality Check 1,523,978
Why do white girls get mad when white guys talk... 2 min blu 45
the trashiest looking mudshark I've ever seen 4 min No_Watermelon_4_U 2
White racist boys sexual frustration 10 min The Gleaming Axe 3
Am I a NOG? 19 min No_Watermelon_4_U 15
Negro behavior in public places 24 min No_Watermelon_4_U 139
Swedish girl gives head in the Congo! 43 min The Racist Axe 30
Trump ~ 100* Days ~ Major Accomplishments? 2 hr Mick 58
Trump ~ Skipping Correspondents Dinner 4 hr Trump WINS 2016 13
More from around the web