Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 Full story: The Skanner 9,656

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.

Full Story
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#9871 Jan 12, 2013
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with 1813 or nazis you perverts think everyone is a threat if they don't believe in your perversions.Nobody is a threat until you try to force your agendas on normal society then the rules change.
DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK....JUST HOW MANY TIMES YOU TRY TO CRUSH CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM AND RIGHTS HITLER BOY...

“I can see better with”

Since: Mar 11

my eyes closed

#9872 Jan 12, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK....JUST HOW MANY TIMES YOU TRY TO CRUSH CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM AND RIGHTS HITLER BOY...
It has nothing to do with the constitution it is about right and wrong and morality and the sanctity of marriage.Marriage is defined as a union between a male and female not two males or two females.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#9873 Jan 12, 2013
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with the constitution it is about right and wrong and morality and the sanctity of marriage.Marriage is defined as a union between a male and female not two males or two females.
YOU SAID IT.....You dontc are for freedom or equality or the constitution...ONLY YOUR NAZI FASCIST RLEIGOSU CULT BS..........FORK YOU AND YOUR MORALS....THEY DONT APPLY TO ANYONE BUT YOU NAZI PIGS....

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9874 Jan 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
On the other hand, as the population ages, people wise up. Most same sex marriage supporters are OK with it because of how it feels to be sympathetic to a mascot victim group. When you consider the consequences of radical change to a fundamental social institution, then you become a conservative.
Apparently, you hope that aging youths will become crotchety old fools like yourself when they get older. Fortunately for us, the polls tell us that the exact opposite is happening.

Support for GLBT equality has consistently increased in all age groups. According to an analysis of historical polls by The Third Way, support for same-sex marriage among people born before 1940 moved from just 15% in 2004 to 28% in 2011. Among people born after 1980, acceptance moved from 44% to 61%. So the move among the old codgers was 13% and 17% among the young whippersnappers. Each cohort in between showed similar increases in support.

So you'd better accustom yourself to those nuptial announcements. They're coming soon to a newspaper near you.
http://issuu.com/thirdway/docs/third_way_repo...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#9875 Jan 13, 2013
sickofit wrote:
GO BACK TO THE 1950,S MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT BLACKS WERE NOT EQUAL TO WHITES....
Back in the 50's, there was racial segregation in housing and other markets. The Republicans sponsored equal rights legislation. The Democratic party opposed it, only changing when enough people started voting against them to threaten their demise as a political party.

Same sex marriage is a return to discrimination and prejudice because traditional marriage is gender integrated and same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage.

.
sickofit wrote:
Now most know they are.....
Their are ancient arguments against segregation; Moses had an interracial marriage. There are no ancient arguments for same sex marriage because every pre21st century culture had gender harmony in male/female marriage.

.
sickofit wrote:
SORRY YOU NAZI FASCIST LOSE LOSE LOSE EVERYTIME....
I call Godwin's rule, you lose!

.
sickofit wrote:
Just think how radical of a change itw as to let blacks marry whites.....
Interracial marriage has always existed, I cited Moses above. in 1884, Frederick Douglass married Helen Pitts. One thing all historical interracial marriages have in common; they were all male/female unions.

.
sickofit wrote:
YORU KIND HATES FREEDOM AND EQUALITY....DONT YOU HITLER LOVER?????
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; gender equality is ersatz equality because men and women aren't equal. Our Constitution explicitly recognizes the difference between male and female in the second section of the 14th Amendment.

Note how many same sex marriage supporters use defamation and insult in arguments. They don't understand ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

If you love logic and oppose falsehood; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#9876 Jan 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Apparently, you hope that aging youths will become crotchety old fools like yourself when they get older. Fortunately for us, the polls tell us that the exact opposite is happening.
Experience grows wisdom. Once you start thinking about the consequences of a social policy instead of how it makes you feel to be inclusive and sympathetic; you stop being a liberal and become a conservative.

.
nhjeff wrote:
Support for GLBT equality has consistently increased in all age groups.
Gay rights are human rights; marriage 'equality' is a special 'right' to redefine marriage for everyone.

.
nhjeff wrote:
According to an analysis of historical polls by The Third Way, support for same-sex marriage among people born before 1940 moved from just 15% in 2004 to 28% in 2011. Among people born after 1980, acceptance moved from 44% to 61%. So the move among the old codgers was 13% and 17% among the young whippersnappers. Each cohort in between showed similar increases in support.
Many gays oppose same sex marriage:

http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/
http://www.homovox.com

.
nhjeff wrote:
So you'd better accustom yourself to those nuptial announcements. They're coming soon to a newspaper near you.[URL deleted]
Time will tell.

Same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage; a step backward toward uncivilized barbarism. Traditional marriage has always included the gender harmony of male/female union. If you love integration and diversity; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#9877 Jan 13, 2013
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with 1813 or nazis you perverts think everyone is a threat if they don't believe in your perversions.Nobody is a threat until you try to force your agendas on normal society then the rules change.
You expect everyone to believe in your "perversions" don't you? What's strange to one may be normal to another, and what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is no one's business. Why do some people think of gays and lesbians only in terms of sex acts? If someone is heterosexual, do you immediately imagine them having sex?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#9878 Jan 13, 2013
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with the constitution it is about right and wrong and morality and the sanctity of marriage.Marriage is defined as a union between a male and female not two males or two females.
Doesn't your so-called "morality" include not judging others and treating them as you'd like to be treated? I see nothing immoral about loving someone, regardless of whether they're same or opposite sex.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#9879 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Back in the 50's, there was racial segregation in housing and other markets. The Republicans sponsored equal rights legislation. The Democratic party opposed it, only changing when enough people started voting against them to threaten their demise as a political party.
Same sex marriage is a return to discrimination and prejudice because traditional marriage is gender integrated and same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage.
.
<quoted text>Their are ancient arguments against segregation; Moses had an interracial marriage. There are no ancient arguments for same sex marriage because every pre21st century culture had gender harmony in male/female marriage.
.
<quoted text>I call Godwin's rule, you lose!
.
<quoted text>Interracial marriage has always existed, I cited Moses above. in 1884, Frederick Douglass married Helen Pitts. One thing all historical interracial marriages have in common; they were all male/female unions.
.
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; gender equality is ersatz equality because men and women aren't equal. Our Constitution explicitly recognizes the difference between male and female in the second section of the 14th Amendment.
Note how many same sex marriage supporters use defamation and insult in arguments. They don't understand ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
If you love logic and oppose falsehood; keep marriage one man and one woman.
What happen to the GOP...They use to be for equal rights and freedom...NOW YOU GOP TURDS ONLYW ANT THIS NATION TO BE A THEOCRATIC NAZI FASCIST SHITE HOLE......YOUR A TRAITOR.....GO DIE AND DO US A FAVOR...

yOU HITLER LOVERS JUST CANT STAND WHEN OTHERS HAVE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS AS YOU TRAITORS DO.....You should eb shot for being a treasonous nazi.....die pig.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9880 Jan 13, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
You expect everyone to believe in your "perversions" don't you? What's strange to one may be normal to another, and what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is no one's business. Why do some people think of gays and lesbians only in terms of sex acts? If someone is heterosexual, do you immediately imagine them having sex?
Most of the time, they're jealous.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9881 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Experience grows wisdom...
Obviously, Brian had not read the post that he pretended to respond to. But thanks, anyway, Brian for the opportunity to put some more information out. While it may have been completely lost on you, there are many others reading posts.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9882 Jan 13, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wilde was a well known degenerate and a pederast. Let's not presume to know what did or did not satisfy him...
Can you provide any definitive proof that Wilde was either "degenerate," whatever that means, or a pederast?
nor may him out to be a hero.
Oh there you come from left-field again. Nobody made Wilde out to be a hero. He was a tragic figure. And the role of homosexuality in his life and society contributed greatly to the loss of his great wit and writing.
You guys need to go back to your PR people and get more training on presenting yourselves as good family folk just like the rest of us.
Umm, it's your buddy Brian who keeps bringing up Oscar Wilde. He's the one who holds up Wilde's unfaithful marriage as an example for all to follow.

Seems to me you've once again tried to put the shoe on the wrong foot.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9883 Jan 13, 2013
To deny to some the rights that are guaranteed to others is to discriminate. To do that, the government must demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest. There is no legitimate governmental interest in denying to gay people the rights guaranteed to straight people. Neither you nor the lawyers supporting discrimination have been able to present any such legitimate governmental interest.

"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). Under our rational basis standard of review,“legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 440; see also Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632—633 (1996); Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11—12 (1992).

Laws such as economic or tax legislation that are scrutinized under rational basis review normally pass constitutional muster, since “the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 440; see also Fitzgerald v. Racing Assn. of Central Iowa, ante, p.___; Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955). We have consistently held, however, that some objectives, such as “a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” are not legitimate state interests. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra, at 534. See also Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 446—447; Romer v. Evans, supra, at 632. When a law exhibits such a desire to harm a politically unpopular group, we have applied a more searching form of rational basis review to strike down such laws under the Equal Protection Clause."
( Justice O'Connor in Lawrence)

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9884 Jan 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You are missing the point.
What "ideas about sexuality" would you be referring to? That being gay is natural for some people? That it's not chosen or catching, and that gay people should be treated the same way that every other American should be treated, legally and socially?
The children that are taught otherwise are the ones doing the bullying, aren't they?
What "ideas about sexuality" do you propose we teach children? Aren't the simple facts enough?
Actually, you are missing the point.

I am sure you believe being gay is natural for some people. And I am sure you believe its amoral. You are entitled to those beliefs and I have no desire to make you feel otherwise.

And yes, the people who bully gays certainly do not agree with the way you live your life.

But none of that gives you or the public schools the right to teach other people's kids what they should or should not believe are moral sex practices.

The schools and you have the right to expect appropriate behavior from potential bullies. You should insist on tolerance and respect for everyone. But you are not for tolerance at all. You want to persuade others to share your views on sexuality. That is over reaching and stepping on the rights of other families.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9885 Jan 13, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still, you refuse to recognize that the legal marriage of a gay couple is not treated equally to the legal marriage of a straight couple from the same jurisdiction.
Reasonable people will admit this is not equal treatment under the law.
No I see your point. Marriage has always been an agreement between the sexes. When you cross state or international lines with this new definition you will have conflicts. I live under that law too. If I choose to marry a man I would be in the same boat.

So, should we take marriage laws out of the hands of states and make them federal? How about internationally? And all this just for this very tiny group of people? How about polygamists? Them too?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9886 Jan 13, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way to prevent bullying is to change those negative beliefs before they are acted upon. Unfortunately for those who want to teach that being gay is some sort of disorder, that requires teaching that gay people are a natural minority of the human population, and should be treated the same as others.
Punishing the bullies after the fact does not prevent the harm that results to both the victim and the bully.
Absolutely. Thanks for being honest. Welcome to the gay agenda.

This is why I oppose ALL gay rights. I used to take the live and let live position. But I realized you don't respect my families rights at all and you want to indoctrinate my kids.

Again, your honesty is refreshing.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9887 Jan 13, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you deny there are more promiscuous straight men than there are gay men?
Please don't play silly word games with me. I am stupid.

Speaking in terms of quantity...yes there are more promiscuous heterosexual men. The reason is obvious.

Speaking in terms of a percentage of the whole...no comparison.

We all know this. Do we really need to do this?
Frankies Pudenda

Hoboken, NJ

#9888 Jan 13, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't play silly word games with me. I am stupid.
Thanks for admitting it.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9889 Jan 13, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When it appears someone does not know we are talking about allowing gay couples to participate under the same laws currently in effect for straight people, I use the phrase; "marriage equality for gay couples". But when marriage for gay couples is the topic, I shorten it to "marriage equality". Am I giving too much credit to the comprehension abilities of the opposition?
When two people show up to get a marriage license, sexual orientation is not a question. Gender is used in some states to deny that license to same sex couples. Marriage equality for gay couples requires treating a same sex couple the same as they would an opposite sex couple.
You should know by now, many have no problem with denial of equality. While no one can demonstrate a compelling and legitimate governmental interest for doing so, many are perfectly willing to deny equal treatment to gay people.(Remember DADT? DOMA?)
"Equal" used 4 times. Nice work.

In the state of CA this law applies to both you and I equally:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

Marriage rights are defined by each state. Why is that so hard to understand?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9890 Jan 13, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
What I find kool is this...70% of people under age 40 are ok with same sex marriage...80% of people under age 30 are ok with same sex marriage...90% of people under age 20 are ok with same sex marriage. TIME WILL LEAD TO EQUALITY...ONCE OLD NAZI FREAKS DIE OFF
Well that is one way to look at it. Yet another, is that as people age their position changes. Its called wisdom.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hitching Post wedding chapel sues over gay marr... 21 min WeTheSheeple 54
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 34 min Pat Robertson s F... 247
Berlusconi: Let's legalize gay civil unions 54 min Pat Robertson s F... 22
Elizabeth Taylor & Michael Jackson at Her Final... 1 hr Octopus 41
Judge Strikes Down NC Gay Marriage Ban 2 hr REAL FRUIT 96
Islanders protest gay-marriage ban - Hawaii News (Feb '09) 6 hr Jack 169
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 hr Bite Me 50,643

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE