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
6,281 - 6,300 of 9,656 Comments Last updated Nov 19, 2013
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6749
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Protect procreation?????
hahahahaahah
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahhaahha
ahahahhahaahha
Is THAT why you have that condom on your head?
you are unremittingly dumb.

So, can you prove it by saying you bought the 1.5 mil condos, or will you just have to admit you are a liar for inferring you did when you own a shack in the Oranges?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6750
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
are you REALLY suggesting no correlation in this sentence?
Yes, I am saying that.......and we know that this is true because many couples have children without getting married.

And let's say for arguments sake that back in that ruling there was a direct correlation.....does that correlation STILL apply in today's society? The answer would be NO!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6751
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you know what it says...
its the scotus...saying we protect procreation which we must protect marriage to fully cover...
I think that's what you WANT to believe SCOTUS meant, but I'm not sure that is what they meant.....and again, even if they did back then, would it mean the same today.......Probably not!!!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6752
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am saying that.......and we know that this is true because many couples have children without getting married.
And let's say for arguments sake that back in that ruling there was a direct correlation.....does that correlation STILL apply in today's society? The answer would be NO!!!
based on what? HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT?

Its a case from 1974...

"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."

let me simplify it for you...
"if the right to procreate means anything it must imply some right to MARRIAGE"

they must have slipped that in there just so you gays would be denied...those bigots.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6753
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that's what you WANT to believe SCOTUS meant, but I'm not sure that is what they meant.....a
you are too funny...

forget what any courts say...
tell us how you FEEL again...

"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."

this is from a seminal SCOTUS marriage case...

where's your support that they are NO LONGER linked...
(besides your feelings)

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6754
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Eriq Barrington wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. It is unlikely that anyone can stop the current progression towards pro-homosexual lifestyles. As you stated I (like you) stated my opinions. I'm not full of hate so I can live with the fact that I don't have control over the direction of our societies moral make up. However, I can maintain my opinion which I have done respectfully.
Lastly...I wrote this, "What makes us better than animals is we "attempted" to make our act of mating civilized through marriage."
It's my fault for blurring the lines between the procreation and mating (sex). I realize I began by responding directly to your question but I ended by veering off a bit. Sex was made morally right by marriage. That's not an opinion. My statement to you was based on the notion that we (as a society) ultimately want to procreate civilly. And although some may not be able to have children the act of making love was expected to be done within the confines of a union between a "man and a woman". Marriage provides us with that opportunity.
Although test tubes and other methods are replacing the sanctity of man woman unions.
Good night.
I am really sick of you and people like you trying to make ME the bad guy when it comes to morals and responsibility.

Tune in to a Maury Povich show sometime and look at how "moral" your precious heterosexuals are.

Marriage is now about love, not creating an heir or uniting two great families politically and economically.

Your whole "traditional marriage" rant is full of holes.

In 'traditional marriage" (notice I can emphasize words without HTML italics) you were nothing but property.

But hey if that's the lifestyle you want, go for it.

Now you say sex was made "morally right" through marriage. You really seem to know very little about the history of marriage and sex.

Marriage was not required for the King to "deflower" the virgin. In fact the virgin was marrying someone else in most cases.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for good marriages between men and women. But take a good look at the number of celebrity marriages in the last 5 years that lasted less than 6 months.

You may remember something a very wise man once said. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Go in peace

Namaste.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6755
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
based on what? HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT?
Its a case from 1974...
"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."
let me simplify it for you...
"if the right to procreate means anything it must imply some right to MARRIAGE"
they must have slipped that in there just so you gays would be denied...those bigots.
It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY FEELINGS......it's how I read the sentence and it's stating that both Marriage and procreation are FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS......not that they go hand in hand.

Skinner vs Oklahoma is a case decided in 1942.....SO, not sure where you get 1974 from!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6756
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are too funny...
forget what any courts say...
tell us how you FEEL again...
"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."
this is from a seminal SCOTUS marriage case...
where's your support that they are NO LONGER linked...
(besides your feelings)
You keep mentioning my feelings, when my feelings are not a part of that ruling or how I do feel about it......but your feelings are very obvious and it is what you want to believe the ruling is implying.......but like I said, Ted Olson has stated many times that SCOTUS has ruled that Marriage is a Fundamental right.........I think he understand law better than you do!!!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6757
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've not been disrespectful towards you......truly no point in it.
There is no more a "HOMOSEXUAL" lifestyle as there is a "HETEROSEXUAL" lifestyle.......a lifestyle has to do with the foods you like to eat, the clothes you wear, the music you listen to, what or if any sports you enjoy, whether or not you like politics or not......those things that have to do with our attitudes, likes and dislikes are part of our lifestyles......not who we are as a person or who we are attracted to.
Again, you have NO IDEA what my moral values are.....but I have traditional values probably just like you do.......I believe in treating others as I want to be treated, sometimes that doesn't always work in these threads or in real life, but it's what I strive for!!!
We "attempted" to make our act of mating civilized through marriage." Really? I have no desire to "MATE" with the opposite-sex and it doesn't require a couple to marry before mating!!!
Sex hasn't been morally right since the 60's and what people do in the privacy of their home is not my business nor yours.
You may wish to live in a fairy tale world where people marry first before having sex, but that RARELY happens in today's society and though we would hope and like for our children to wait until marriage to have sex.........that is just unrealistic thinking. Personally, I'd love my grandchild to wait until getting married, but more importantly, I'd hope that they would come to me and ask me about proper precautions to prevent STD's or other nasty things!!!
The act of making love has not been confined to just between a man and a woman for a very long time and especially not just confined to being married.......and again, what consenting adults do is not my business.
Modern medicine is there to help any couple have a baby, even couples you may not want to have children.
Beautiful and touching post my friend. Glad you brought up the whole "lifestyle" B.S.

Is wanting to be married a "lifestyle"?

Is expecting our government and our fellow citizens to follow what it says in the U.S. Constitution under Amendments 9 and 14 a "lifestyle"?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6758
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

jenny623 wrote:
Not the same. Sexual orientation vs skin color discrimination. That's why no one is buying that argument. I can understand the federal discrimination in places of military, or government. Other than that, I fail to see how this compares to what Blacks went through. It's an insult to what Blacks fought for.
<quoted text>
Funny I thought blacks fought to make sure everyone was protected equally under the law.

Thank you for pointing out that is wasn't that at all.

I never said racial discrimination was "THE SAME" as sexual discrimination. I simply pointed out that discrimination is discrimination. I pointed out that gays suffered the same types of abuse blacks did.

It's appalling to me that a group that faced as much hate and violence as blacks did, now turns their back on others who are also fighting for equal treatment under the law.

BTW IMO YOU are an insult to blacks.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6759
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anyone help this fool?
DOMA allows SSM. Read the law. Then TRY to stop looking so ridiculous on these boards.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6760
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a simple statement of fact. Straights can have children BY ACCIDENT, and gay couples NEVER CAN...or do you dispute this little sliver of reality?
So since a gay couple always CHOOSES to have a child, they can wait and CHOOSE at the right time...straight couples do not always have that luxury...
so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is being said?
Yes I do. I know several gay men who, as teens had sex with girls as a way to "cure" their same sex desires. Their children from those couplings were not planned. And an unplanned pregnancy is by definition an "accident" right?

As for straight couples not being able to choose when to have a child, you're just plain out of touch with reality.

so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is true!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6761
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Its a simple statement of fact. Straights can have children BY ACCIDENT, and gay couples NEVER CAN...or do you dispute this little sliver of reality?
So since a gay couple always CHOOSES to have a child, they can wait and CHOOSE at the right time...straight couples do not always have that luxury...
so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is being said?
Someone please help this fool
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6762
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep mentioning my feelings, when my feelings are not a part of that ruling or how I do feel about it......but your feelings are very obvious and it is what you want to believe the ruling is implying.......but like I said, Ted Olson has stated many times that SCOTUS has ruled that Marriage is a Fundamental right.........I think he understand law better than you do!!!
yes, it has, as it has been linked to procreation in the case I already gave you...
and all others including Loving and Skinner...

U.S. Supreme Court

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL

434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Decided January 18, 1978

maybe you should READ IT before telling me I am wrong?

so, if you didn't even READ THE CASE, you are clearly not talking from a basis in fact....
so whats left?
YOUR FEELINGS...

your feelings and a dollar get you a coffee any size at McD's.

"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."

there is no other way to read these words. You are WRONG.

the quote explain why marriage IS fundamental...and its because it relates to the well established right to procreate...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6763
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
My marriage is accepted in all 50 states and hers is not. THAT IS A FACT.
What is the problem with CU's again?
Oh yeah,not equal since they are not recognized in all states...
so if Cu's are unequal for this same reason, the marriage is NOT EQUAL?
see how that works?
I can live married in NJ, RNL cannot...get it?
Oh yes I get it. The thing is you are perfectly happy knowing that a fellow citizen is being denied their Constitutional rights and I'm not.

Faux outrage? Check your mirror.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6764
Sep 20, 2012
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>DOMA allows SSM. Read the law. Then TRY to stop looking so ridiculous on these boards.
then it will be easy for you to put up some support...
I'll wait...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6765
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and then you bring up polygamy and they call it a RED HERRING...
so a marriage right currently denied is not relevant, but racial civil rights is a direct analogy?
I know why you play this way....
I know why I play this way too. I was raised in a Republican household!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6766
Sep 20, 2012
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I do. I know several gay men who, as teens had sex with girls as a way to "cure" their same sex desires. Their children from those couplings were not planned. And an unplanned pregnancy is by definition an "accident" right?
As for straight couples not being able to choose when to have a child, you're just plain out of touch with reality.
so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is true!
WTF are you talking about?

So did the gay person have a baby by accident with another gay?

no, they had STRAIGHT SEX...which does lead to babies...just GAY SEX does not...

are you suggesting gays have STRAIGHT sex as part of their marriage?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6767
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Beautiful and touching post my friend. Glad you brought up the whole "lifestyle" B.S.
Is wanting to be married a "lifestyle"?
Is expecting our government and our fellow citizens to follow what it says in the U.S. Constitution under Amendments 9 and 14 a "lifestyle"?
Thank you for your comment......but it is simply amazing how some folks thing who we are is a "LIFESTYLE", but who they are is something much more!!!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6768
Sep 20, 2012
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Someone please help this fool
where's your support?

go find some buddy...but its gonna take a while...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••