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
9,181 - 9,200 of 9,656 Comments Last updated Nov 19, 2013

Since: Jan 08

Providence, UT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9769
Jan 8, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe men are as capable of exclusive commitment as women; therefor a 'marriage' between two men would be less monogamous than traditional marriage.
Reason #31 for keeping marriage male/female: Monogamy.
The "I don't believe" reason for discrimination won't be upheld in any court, I believe.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9770
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still, no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.
Society always changes. Some would still like to restrict the equal rights of various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc. Yet most see less irrational prejudice as a good thing, while others want to keep everything as it was when they were born or even go backward.
“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.” Anti-marriage equality director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, one of the few witnesses who testified in support of Prop 8.
Please don't compare yourself to "various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc". What you like to do with your winky doesn't really fit you into one of those catagories.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9771
Jan 9, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has not always been the same. There are 8 types of marriage in the bible alone. It has meant different things at various times and places. Women and children were property of the man and until recently, inter-racial marriage was not allowed.
Not all people have the same marriage rights. Denial of reality only changes reality in your mind, not in the law.
The legal marriages of gay couples are not treated equally to the legal marriages of straight couples from the same jurisdiction. Clearly, this is unequal treatment under the law. "DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
Marriage has always been an arrangement between the sexes. There is no SIGNIFICANT historical precedence for "gay marriage".

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9773
Jan 9, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage would harm marriage by decreasing monogamy; the marriage of two men is far less likely to be monogamous than the marriage of a man and a woman.
Which is the reason gay men are statistically quite promiscuous.

Oh no...did I actually put that in writing? Gay activists and the press have been trying to suppress or disprove that FACT for years now. I hope no one counters me with the new "gays are just good family folks like you" campaign.

Okay...let's hear it.

BTW...seen any gay pride parades lately? You "good family folks" need to talk to your PR people about that one.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9774
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Proving once again, there is no reasonable, rational, or scientifically supportable excuse for denial of equal treatment of "all persons" as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
We have equal treatment. We all live under the same laws. There are not separate laws for gays and straights.

You simply want to redefine marriage to include something it has never been.

A more accurate post would have been "proving once again, there is no reasonable, rational, or scientifically supportable excuse for not allowing the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution."

Oh wait...that doesn't make any sense.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9775
Jan 9, 2013
 
WaterBoarder wrote:
Which is the reason gay men are statistically quite promiscuous.
Oh no...did I actually put that in writing? Gay activists and the press have been trying to suppress or disprove that FACT for years now. I hope no one counters me with the new "gays are just good family folks like you" campaign.
Okay...let's hear it.
BTW...seen any gay pride parades lately? You "good family folks" need to talk to your PR people about that one.
I agree with your observations; if marriage is valuable because it promotes monogamy then including marriage as two men would decrease that value.

Thanks for your posts; keep up the good work.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9776
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't compare yourself to "various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc". What you like to do with your winky doesn't really fit you into one of those catagories.
Why should Gays and Lesbians be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing regardless of how one views a person's sexual orientation as a choice or innate if one's religious beliefs are protected and that IS a personal choice?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9777
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't compare yourself to "various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc". What you like to do with your winky doesn't really fit you into one of those catagories.
Is being heterosexual only about sex?(If you believe it is, don't tell your wife or girlfriend if you want to keep your relationship.)

And what about gay women?

Being a gay person is about far more than having sex. For most, it includes finding a person with whom to spend your life.

But you dodge the point, which was; society always changes, yet there are always those who resist change and wish to continue prejudices, long after they have been shown to be irrational.

But since you bring it up, prejudice is the same in that it attempts to dehumanize a group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity, and personhood, to justify harming them through denial of equal treatment under the law, punishment, and worse.

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: "And yet while their story of oppression and injustice is not the same as ours, it is equally valid. African-Americans recognize injustice when we see it. Gays and lesbians have been incarcerated, brutalized, lobotomized, raped, castrated, and robbed of their jobs, families and children."

Rev. Dr. James Lawson is a distinguished United Methodist pastor who worked side-by-side with Dr. King training the activists who participated in the lunch counter sit-ins and the Freedom Rides of the 1960s. In 2004, he received the Community of Christ International Peace Award. Rev. Lawson said of the plight of many gay people: "Gays and lesbians have a more difficult time than we did. We had our families and our churches on our side. All too often, they have neither."

Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman, declared, "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9778
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has always been an arrangement between the sexes. There is no SIGNIFICANT historical precedence for "gay marriage".
Well, at least it appears you are reluctantly willing to admit marriage has taken many forms across time and place, even though you still want to deny same sex marriage has ever been accepted despite evidence to the contrary.

And clearly, same sex marriage has never destroyed any society as some would have us believe.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9779
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is the reason gay men are statistically quite promiscuous.
Oh no...did I actually put that in writing? Gay activists and the press have been trying to suppress or disprove that FACT for years now. I hope no one counters me with the new "gays are just good family folks like you" campaign.
Okay...let's hear it.
BTW...seen any gay pride parades lately? You "good family folks" need to talk to your PR people about that one.
Statistically, MEN are quite promiscuous, especially in their younger years.

Yet we don't restrict any straight men from marriage, even those who brag about having had thousands of women.(Gene Simmons claims over 5,000, Wilt claims over 3,000)

And as it appears you may know, applying a statistical analysis to any and all individuals in that population is a fallacy. Not all men, straight or gay are promiscuous.

It also appears you would deny marriage equality to women, based on your beliefs about men. This is irrational.

Have you ever been to a Pride Parade? Or have you only seen the clips of the most outrageous parts promoted by those groups who oppose equal rights?

If you had seen a major parade, in addition to the muscle boys in Speedos and the flamboyant drag queens, you would have seen the contingents of doctors and medical professionals, firefighters, police officers, soldiers and sailors, as well as the various religious contingents, all dressed in either work related uniforms or average street clothes.

Gay people are a diverse population of people from just about every group you can imagine, including republicans. There is no one organization that speaks for all others.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9780
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
We have equal treatment. We all live under the same laws. There are not separate laws for gays and straights.
You simply want to redefine marriage to include something it has never been.
A more accurate post would have been "proving once again, there is no reasonable, rational, or scientifically supportable excuse for not allowing the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution."
Oh wait...that doesn't make any sense.
Again, the legal marriages of gay couples are not treated as equal to the legal marriages of straight couples from the same jurisdiction. "DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9781
Jan 9, 2013
 
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Imagine that. The Bible has more than six verses.

Are you surprised?

Now do some more research and try to decide which translation of that passage is the correct one.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9782
Jan 9, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
I agree with your observations; if marriage is valuable because it promotes monogamy then including marriage as two men would decrease that value.
Thanks for your posts; keep up the good work.
So you don't want gay men to be monogamous? You want to encourage them to sleep around?

And why wouldn't marriage be valuable to PROMOTE monogamy in gay men when you believe it is used to PROMOTE monogamy in straight men?

Wouldn't being more monogamous lead to less sexually transmitted diseases which would be a good thing for society?

Promoting marriage for gay men would be a good thing for society.

“T.H.I.N.K. Before you Speak”

Since: Sep 08

With My Wife and Family

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9783
Jan 9, 2013
 
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is the reason gay men are statistically quite promiscuous.
Oh no...did I actually put that in writing? Gay activists and the press have been trying to suppress or disprove that FACT for years now. I hope no one counters me with the new "gays are just good family folks like you" campaign.
Okay...let's hear it.
BTW...seen any gay pride parades lately? You "good family folks" need to talk to your PR people about that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Mrs Whitewater

“T.H.I.N.K. Before you Speak”

Since: Sep 08

With My Wife and Family

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9784
Jan 9, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with your observations; if marriage is valuable because it promotes monogamy then including marriage as two men would decrease that value.
Thanks for your posts; keep up the good work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Mrs Whitewater

“T.H.I.N.K. Before you Speak”

Since: Sep 08

With My Wife and Family

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9785
Jan 9, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Statistically, MEN are quite promiscuous, especially in their younger years.
Yet we don't restrict any straight men from marriage, even those who brag about having had thousands of women.(Gene Simmons claims over 5,000, Wilt claims over 3,000)
And as it appears you may know, applying a statistical analysis to any and all individuals in that population is a fallacy. Not all men, straight or gay are promiscuous.
It also appears you would deny marriage equality to women, based on your beliefs about men. This is irrational.
Have you ever been to a Pride Parade? Or have you only seen the clips of the most outrageous parts promoted by those groups who oppose equal rights?
If you had seen a major parade, in addition to the muscle boys in Speedos and the flamboyant drag queens, you would have seen the contingents of doctors and medical professionals, firefighters, police officers, soldiers and sailors, as well as the various religious contingents, all dressed in either work related uniforms or average street clothes.
Gay people are a diverse population of people from just about every group you can imagine, including republicans. There is no one organization that speaks for all others.
You know, when I get so fed up with the stupi arguments, I can't help but think.....( I have this as a ring tone for my attorney. lol)

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Bright Blessings,
Mrs Whitewater

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9786
Jan 9, 2013
 
WaterBoarder wrote:
BTW...seen any gay pride parades lately? You "good family folks" need to talk to your PR people about that one.
Have you seen the half-time show of a football game lately?'Nuff said.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9787
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DaveinMass wrote:
So you don't want gay men to be monogamous?
No, I don't care what gay men do; it's none of my business. What you do in your bedroom is private; I don't want to know.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
You want to encourage them to sleep around?
Again, I don't care about who you sleep with. It's none of my business so long as there's consent.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
And why wouldn't marriage be valuable to PROMOTE monogamy in gay men when you believe it is used to PROMOTE monogamy in straight men?
I've never claimed marriage promotes monogamy; I claim that since men are more likely to stray than women, then the marriage between two men would decrease the likelihood of monogamy and therefor decrease monogamy in marriage harming that institution for everyone.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
Wouldn't being more monogamous lead to less sexually transmitted diseases which would be a good thing for society?
Yes, it would but same sex marriage will decrease monogamy in marriage and that's a bad thing for society.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
Promoting marriage for gay men would be a good thing for society.
Not true; promoting monogamy for gay men would be a good thing for society but changing the rules of marriage for everyone to consider two men as married would decrease monogamy in marriage; a bad thing for society.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9788
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Until the 21st Century; all written law described marriage as gender integration; same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. Where before we had a gender diverse institution of marriage now we have apartheid marriage.

In that sense; same sex marriage is like disunion marriage, just as if we had a new breed of racists.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9789
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I don't care what gay men do; it's none of my business. What you do in your bedroom is private; I don't want to know.
.
<quoted text>Again, I don't care about who you sleep with. It's none of my business so long as there's consent.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.
.
<quoted text>I've never claimed marriage promotes monogamy; I claim that since men are more likely to stray than women, then the marriage between two men would decrease the likelihood of monogamy and therefor decrease monogamy in marriage harming that institution for everyone.
.
<quoted text>Yes, it would but same sex marriage will decrease monogamy in marriage and that's a bad thing for society.
.
<quoted text>Not true; promoting monogamy for gay men would be a good thing for society but changing the rules of marriage for everyone to consider two men as married would decrease monogamy in marriage; a bad thing for society.
Irrational fear mongering again.

While monogamy is not a legal requirement for marriage, it attracts people who are interested in monogamy. Men who don't want to be monogamous, tend to not get married. And yet we don't restrict any straight men from marriage, even those who brag about having had thousands of women.(Gene Simmons claims over 5,000, etc.)

But using that same logic, it would be irrational to restrict marriage from gay women, and if you believe that how any couple conducts their marriage determines how all others will as well, it would follow that gay women getting married would increase monogamy in the institution. Of course, it is irrational to think that someone else's marriage would determine how you conduct yours. Not everyone wants 8 marriages like Larry King.

Again, applying a statistical analysis to any and all individuals in that population is a fallacy. Not all men, straight or gay are promiscuous. Many men as well as women, gay and straight, want monogamy.

This is simply another fear based excuse to avoid treating others the way you want to be treated under the 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.

•••
•••