Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9652 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: Jun 11

AOL

#10236 Sep 24, 2013
"Congress... cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
...the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10237 Sep 24, 2013
Nonsense, states have the right to define marriage as one man and one woman.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10238 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Of course, one changes law with selective enforcement; Obama's pension enforcement makes every state recognize same sex marriage. That's why it changes the law, that's contrary to all written law.
On the contrary, the federal government's recognition of same sex marriages based on where contracted in no way forces states to recognize same sex marriages if their laws or constitutions prohibit it. In fact the state of Louisiana has already announced same sex married couples living in their state must file state tax returns as single filers even though their own state law currently requires residents to use the same filing status for state returns that is used for the federal tax return.

How's that for ignoring the law, Brian? But I suppose that's OK since it supports the outcome YOU want.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10239 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
31 States have laws that defend marriage as one man and one woman; Obama's actions enforcing same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Those states aren't being forced to recognize same sex marriages for purposes of complying with state laws or receiving state benefits.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10240 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nonsense, states have the right to define marriage as one man and one woman.
They can define it how they wish. Whether their definition is constitutional is another matter altogether.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10241 Sep 25, 2013
the voice of reason wrote:
... Every state where the people voted on this issue voted against gay marriages. So they used the back door approach to get it legal. What use to be the government of the people and by the people has been reduce to a government by a few for the few.
So, the state legislators and the courts are simply "back doors"? What an odd idea.

And since when do we get to vote on which basic civil rights another group receives? If you wish do do that, and have no reason other than personal religious belief or dislike for that group, shouldn't you expect a legal challenge to the unconstitutional law you voted for?

That's one of the purposes of the court system, isn't it? And aren't the legislators and the courts a key part of our form of government?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10242 Sep 25, 2013
One man and one woman marriage is middle of the road, centrism. Radically rewriting marriage law or criminalizing homosexual activity are the extreme, radical positions.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10243 Sep 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nonsense, states have the right to define marriage as one man and one woman.
Nonsense, you've yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by such a definition that denies equal protection of the law to same sex couples.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10244 Sep 25, 2013
Supreme Court:

"The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (Windsor)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10245 Sep 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
One man and one woman marriage is middle of the road, centrism.
No, it's just bigoted toeing the existing line, absent a valid reason to do so.
Brian_G wrote:
Radically rewriting marriage law or criminalizing homosexual activity are the extreme, radical positions.
No, that would be coming into accord with the US Constitution, and its guarantee of equal protection for all.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10247 Sep 25, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's just bigoted toeing the existing line, absent a valid reason to do so.
<quoted text>
No, that would be coming into accord with the US Constitution, and its guarantee of equal protection for all.
Brian_G wrote:
Radically rewriting marriage law or criminalizing homosexual activity are the extreme, radical positions.
lides replied:
No, that would be coming into accord with the US Constitution, and its guarantee of equal protection for all.
You can't make this stuff up!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10248 Sep 25, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian_G wrote:
Radically rewriting marriage law or criminalizing homosexual activity are the extreme, radical positions.
lides replied:
No, that would be coming into accord with the US Constitution, and its guarantee of equal protection for all.
You can't make this stuff up!
And yet Brian, and you, continue to make things up.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10249 Sep 25, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
And yet Brian, and you, continue to make things up.
Both seem to be in the same intellectual strata... or basement.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10250 Sep 25, 2013
Couples have no rights in our Constitution; individuals, states and the federal government have rights, not couples.

Same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10251 Sep 25, 2013
Just as soon as Brian is appointed to SCOTUS, someone will begin caring what he thinks about the constitutionality of same sex marriages.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10252 Sep 25, 2013
Supreme Court:

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10253 Sep 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Couples have no rights in our Constitution; individuals, states and the federal government have rights, not couples.
Same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. But then, what else is new?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10254 Sep 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
One man and one woman marriage is middle of the road, centrism. Radically rewriting marriage law or criminalizing homosexual activity are the extreme, radical positions.
Advocating discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays is not a centrist position, Brian. It's an unconstitutional one.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10255 Sep 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Couples have no rights in our Constitution; individuals, states and the federal government have rights, not couples.
Same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
How dumb do you want us to believe that you are?

Is a gay couple not composed of two individuals?

Are those individuals not entailed to equal protection of the law?

Brian, you truly are implying that you are less than an imbecile.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10256 Sep 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet Brian, and you, continue to make things up.
Show me. lides has proven he's an idiot. You, and others, refuse to believe facts that shine a negative light on homosexuality. Even the gay history law in California only allows history that "portrays homosexuals in a positive way."

"The bill, SB 48, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and so-called transgendered people as well as those with physical or mental disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays."

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
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Chris Rather 5,395
News Hawaii Republican resigns from party after crit... 3 hr Steven Bannon 4
News Canada protestor tears Quran to protest prefere... 3 hr just Jay _ for fr... 1
News Prince 'Ulukalala to wed Hon Sinaitakala Fakafanua (Jul '11) 20 hr Maeakafa 561
News Lacusong: What is your religion's ultimate goal? 22 hr dieu 2
News Ivanka Trump takes daughter Arabella to the Sup... Sat JEFF ZIOTARDE 2
News Austin couple's festive wedding reception was t... Sat CouplesPhartz 1
More from around the web