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.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#4802 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to stop because you are coming up ridiculous.
I don't think so...but you sure do look more and more ridiculous with each post.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4804 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll defend marriage my way, thank you. Who are you to tell me at what end to defend it at???
Because denying marriage to gay couples does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to advance the cause heterosexual marriage.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, in the court’s 128-page opinion, wrote that “although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships,” Reinhardt wrote.“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

The panel also rejected arguments by Prop 8 proponents that the purpose of the initiative was “to promote child rearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren.”

“Simply taking away the designation of ‘marriage,’ while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, did not do any of the things Proponents now suggest were its purposes,” the opinion says.“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

“It is enough to say that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impost on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause,” Reinhardt wrote.

“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4805 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like polygamists????
Cut the crap already. How can you advocate changing the "traditional definition of marriage" to include polygamy while at the same time claiming the "traditional definition of marriage" is one man one woman?

Are you and Brian G in the same psycho ward and craving CO2?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4806 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You can fight to have a seat on the next rocket to the moon if that makes you happy, it doesn't mean it will happen. Your 'happiness' is not anyone else responsibility.
WOW.
Didn't you claim you NEVER demean other people?

Repent or Jesus will stop bringing you that candy on Easter.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4807 May 11, 2012
farda wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN BY MAN. GAY SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR IS NOT NATURAL. YOU GAYS TRY SO HARD TO NORMALIZE YOUR NASTYNESS. DCK IS NOT MEANT 2 GO IN SHT HOLE PERIOD NO MATTER WHO WANTS IT OR NOT.
OK Here's a quote from the Bible:

Matt. 18:19-20,[GOD'S WORD] "I can guarantee again that if two of you agree on anything here on earth, my Father in heaven will accept it.

Look it up. Or are you saying that some stuff in the Bible isn't God's word?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4808 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The govenment has no such responsibility as ssm is not covered under the constititution. Sorry....
OH?

Care to provide a verifiable link to the Constitution that supports that?

I have one that counters your claim.

Amendment 9

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4809 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Your marriage license only covers your state, not the federal government. The state can not tell the federal government what to recognize.
But you just inferred the Federal Constitution bans her marriage.

Please explain how Congress can pass a law (DOMA) that the Constitution forbids.

Or are you saying that when the Constitution says "the people" or "citizens" like in Amendments 9 and 14 it means something else?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4810 May 11, 2012
To RnL:
I hope "That Fool" got a good price at Walmart for the shovel she's using to dig her hole deeper.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#4811 May 11, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Cut the crap already. How can you advocate changing the "traditional definition of marriage" to include polygamy while at the same time claiming the "traditional definition of marriage" is one man one woman?
Are you and Brian G in the same psycho ward and craving CO2?
i'm beginning to wonder if she isn't brian g's sock puppet. they both seem to crave rarified air.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4812 May 11, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm beginning to wonder if she isn't brian g's sock puppet. they both seem to crave rarified air.
I know what you mean. If I ignored the ISP addresses I'd almost think the 2 of them are in the same psycho ward with David Moore!

BTW please see post 993:

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/T9OOF0...

and tell me what you think.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#4813 May 11, 2012
Samatha wrote:
FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over Documented Risk Concerns
>
WASHINGTON, D.C.,– Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.
This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.
According to the FDA, the ban is in place because,“A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.
The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”
Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion.“At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.
“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.“If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”
Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation,” reads the FDA’s policy.
“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”
Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA.“The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said.“Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”
A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Blo...
Thanks, this is very informative. I didn't know this.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#4814 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So draw up a contract. Just because you 'want' something doesn't mean you should 'have' something. I 'want' to be legally bonded to a millionaire, so what????
<quoted text>
Marriage is a right.
Get That Fool wrote:
This 'is' America. You can hold hands all you want. It doesn't mean people are not entitled to be offended by it...which is what I think you 'really' want.
<quoted text>[/
I'm not in your way. You are free to love who you want. You just aren't free to rearrange a sound and necessary tradition and societal cornerstone to suit your relationship.
<quoted text>
Shallow??? You want to talk 'shallow'??? The only reason you all want 'marriage' is for the money, don't preach to me about 'shallow'.
LOL. You just said you wanted to be egally bonded to a millionaire.
Anyway, stupid, gay people want to marry for the same reasons straight people do.
Get That Fool wrote:
I don't care how you experience love that is 'your' business. How we define 'marriage' in this country is all of our business.
Again, marriage is a right. Being against equal rights, like you are, is UN-American.


“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#4815 May 11, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>OH?
Care to provide a verifiable link to the Constitution that supports that?
I have one that counters your claim.
Amendment 9
Baker v Nelson has ruled out unconstitutionality under these amendments of the constitution....

The couple first contended that Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution:[5]

First Amendment (freedom of speech and of association),
Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment),
Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and
Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause).

Swish!!! And that's the game!!!!!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#4816 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
2 people does not mean any two people. A man and a woman does not equal a man and a man, a woman and a woman.
Why not, stupid? Let's hear it.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#4817 May 11, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>But you just inferred the Federal Constitution bans her marriage.
Please explain how Congress can pass a law (DOMA) that the Constitution forbids.
Or are you saying that when the Constitution says "the people" or "citizens" like in Amendments 9 and 14 it means something else?
I didn't 'infer' anything. That's your 'throw in everything but the kitchen sink' mentality working against you....

Explain how DOMA became law...duh, like everything else becomses law....ever watch "School House Rock"??? "I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I've been sitting here on Capital Hill"...don't act like you don't know it.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#4818 May 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a right.
<quoted text>
LOL. You just said you wanted to be egally bonded to a millionaire.
Anyway, stupid, gay people want to marry for the same reasons straight people do.
<quoted text>
Again, marriage is a right. Being against equal rights, like you are, is UN-American.
Not every type of marriage. Sorry.....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#4819 May 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not, stupid? Let's hear it.
Is your mommy your daddy???? Stupid?????

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#4820 May 11, 2012
farda wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN BY MAN. GAY SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR IS NOT NATURAL. YOU GAYS TRY SO HARD TO NORMALIZE YOUR NASTYNESS. DCK IS NOT MEANT 2 GO IN SHT HOLE PERIOD NO MATTER WHO WANTS IT OR NOT.
1. There is same sex sex in nature, the definition of natural.
2. Most men into anal sex are straight. Go tell them how you feel about their having anal sex with women. Let us know how that works out for you.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#4821 May 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is same sex sex in nature, the definition of natural.
2. Most men into anal sex are straight. Go tell them how you feel about their having anal sex with women. Let us know how that works out for you.
Right Rose, that's why we have all these babies running around out here, because most heterosexual men are into anal sex. That makes total sense.....

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#4822 May 11, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, this is very informative. I didn't know this.
1. It has nothing to do with the subject.
2. When you use a sock puppet, don't make it so obvious.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min JCPete 289,433
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Cheech the Conser... 1,603,971
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 hr WelbyMD 242,625
News Election tampering by Russia still without evid... Sun Denny CranesPlace 45
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) Sat Patriot AKA Bozo 37,427
News Mitt Romney surges, leads Obama in polls (Oct '12) Sep 20 Oneryders Daughter 13
News Opinion: The Fatal Flaw for Republicans in Grah... Sep 20 fingers mcgurke 1
More from around the web