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

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#8342 Nov 25, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot, Brian. Bigamy only occurs when you enter into two legally sanctioned marriages. It means you've lied to each of the partners and to the state about your marital status. Polygamy is not legally recognized, and the polygamist isn't hiding anything from his/her partners.
yeah, it's pretty difficult to hide a third or even a forth person in bed, wouldn't you say?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8344 Nov 27, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
It's OK to pity gays but not cool to redefine marriage.
You are to be pitied.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#8345 Nov 27, 2012
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu could have a religious interracial marriage in the deepest South before 1966, but Interracial marriages were not allowed.
In many states, some church can decide to have a religious same-sex marriage. The church won't be raided but the marriage is not recognized....and in some states honosexual activity is grounds for arrest under sodomy laws. If you're caught simply saying you were married religiously will not keep you out of jail.
Sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and therefore void, unless the act is not in a place where privacy is a reasonable expectation. I believe the court case was Lawrence, but I'm not sure. So no one is gong to be arrested for sodomy if it is in a private place between two consenting adults.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8346 Nov 27, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and therefore void, unless the act is not in a place where privacy is a reasonable expectation. I believe the court case was Lawrence, but I'm not sure. So no one is gong to be arrested for sodomy if it is in a private place between two consenting adults.
Yes, it was LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) that declared laws punishing private adult consensual sex to be unconstitutional. Some laws still use the term "sodomy" to prohibit sex that involves force or intimidation, minors, or those unable to demonstrate informed consent.

"Lawrence v. Texas is important for many reasons. Thirteen states still have laws prohibiting private, consensual homosexual activity. These laws are now clearly unconstitutional. The decision is obviously an enormous victory for advocates of gay and lesbian rights. More generally, the decision is the strongest to date by the Supreme Court of a fundamental right of adults to engage in consensual sexual activities." http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecour...

My favorite quote from Lawrence v:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." (Justice Kennedy in Lawrence.)

Again, "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

Hopefully he will remember this when he considers marriage equality.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8347 Nov 27, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it was LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) that

Hopefully he will remember this when he considers marriage equality.
there is a difference between what one does in the PRIVACY of their own homes (Lawrence) and STATE RECOGNITION.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8348 Nov 27, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
there is a difference between what one does in the PRIVACY of their own homes (Lawrence) and STATE RECOGNITION.
"And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Gill v.OPM)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8349 Nov 27, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
"And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Gill v.OPM)
has this case been given more treatment since this decision?
(yes)

What did the federal court find?
"In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality. The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 12, 16. Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring), and that is singularly so in this case given the range of bipartisan support for the statute."

Your slogan has ALREADY been overruled...

My favorite line is :
"Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring)"

encouraging one group is NOT oppressing another...

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8350 Nov 27, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
has this case been given more treatment since this decision?
(yes)
What did the federal court find?
"In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality. The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 12, 16. Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring), and that is singularly so in this case given the range of bipartisan support for the statute."
Your slogan has ALREADY been overruled...
My favorite line is :
"Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring)"
encouraging one group is NOT oppressing another...
You cite Lawrence (2003) to negate Gill (1st Cir. 2012)????

True, Gill has yet to reach the Supreme Court yet but to assert that "has this case [Gill] been given more treatment since this decision?(yes)" is factually untrue. The only further review of Gill could be SCOTUS and they (at this date and time) have not even made a decision to hear the appeal.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8351 Nov 27, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
has this case been given more treatment since this decision?
(yes)
What did the federal court find?
"In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality. The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 12, 16. Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring), and that is singularly so in this case given the range of bipartisan support for the statute."
Your slogan has ALREADY been overruled...
My favorite line is :
"Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring)"
encouraging one group is NOT oppressing another...
And what did the federal Appellate court find?
DOMA section 3 is unconstitutional.

While they did "not rely" on the fact prejudice was one motivation, they did not dismiss that was one consideration either. Neither Gill nor Golinski were overturned. They were upheld.

Additionally they found oppressing one group does not encourage the other:

"Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, Lee Optical, 348 U.S. at 487-88; City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446-50, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage."

"We conclude... that the rationales offered do not provide adequate support for section 3 of DOMA. Several of the reasons given do not match the statute and several others are diminished by specific holdings in Supreme Court decisions more or less directly on point. If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test."
(United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8352 Nov 27, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
You cite Lawrence (2003) to negate Gill (1st Cir. 2012)????
True, Gill has yet to reach the Supreme Court yet but to assert that "has this case [Gill] been given more treatment since this decision?(yes)" is factually untrue. The only further review of Gill could be SCOTUS and they (at this date and time) have not even made a decision to hear the appeal.
um no. the first circuit court of appeals ruled IN GILL (he cited the lower court ruling) and mine was a cut and paste from that decision...(in which they cite to Lawrence).

want to reboot?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8353 Nov 27, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
While they did "not rely" on the fact prejudice was one motivation, they did not dismiss that was one consideration either.
I disagree. They explicitly stated that was not a consideration.

So the very language you cited has already been overruled.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither Gill nor Golinski were overturned. They were upheld.
but that part of the decision (animus)was specifically and expressly overruled.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Additionally they found oppressing one group does not encourage the other:
"Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, Lee Optical, 348 U.S. at 487-88; City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446-50, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage."
"We conclude... that the rationales offered do not provide adequate support for section 3 of DOMA. Several of the reasons given do not match the statute and several others are diminished by specific holdings in Supreme Court decisions more or less directly on point. If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test."
(United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit)
yet they specifically say that encouraging one group is not oppressing the other and what you rely on does not speak to that.
That oppressing one group is not encouraging another is not the inverse...

the court merely found the objectives were not tailored enough...your quotes do not speak to ANY oppression.

BUT, all in all, I sincerely appreciate your posts.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8354 Nov 28, 2012
Same sex marriage is unconstitutional because there is no gender equality right in the Constitution. Men and women are different and the law recognizes that fact of nature.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8355 Nov 28, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is unconstitutional because there is no gender equality right in the Constitution. Men and women are different and the law recognizes that fact of nature.
So you are saying that treating men and women equally is unconstitutional? Which amendment would that be?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8356 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. They explicitly stated that was not a consideration.
So the very language you cited has already been overruled.
<quoted text>
but that part of the decision (animus)was specifically and expressly overruled.
<quoted text>
yet they specifically say that encouraging one group is not oppressing the other and what you rely on does not speak to that.
That oppressing one group is not encouraging another is not the inverse...
the court merely found the objectives were not tailored enough...your quotes do not speak to ANY oppression.
BUT, all in all, I sincerely appreciate your posts.
Nothing was overruled. The appellate court simply did not rely on all of the arguments presented. They didn't need to. They affirmed DOMA as unconstitutional.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8357 Nov 28, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that treating men and women equally is unconstitutional? Which amendment would that be?
Brilliant
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8358 Nov 28, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing was overruled. The appellate court simply did not rely on all of the arguments presented. They didn't need to. They affirmed DOMA as unconstitutional.
that animus was a part of DOMA, WAS part of the case, and now its not...
you agree, right?

When the court doesn't rely, and then specifically finds to the contrary, that's overruling...
of the central analysis, just not the holding.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8359 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that animus was a part of DOMA, WAS part of the case, and now its not...
you agree, right?
When the court doesn't rely, and then specifically finds to the contrary, that's overruling...
of the central analysis, just not the holding.
That makes about as much sense as saying that the Four Color Theorem negates the Pythagorean because its proof doesn't rely on right triangles. What do that teach at the Matchbook School of Law, anyway?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8360 Nov 28, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that animus was a part of DOMA, WAS part of the case, and now its not...
you agree, right?
When the court doesn't rely, and then specifically finds to the contrary, that's overruling...
of the central analysis, just not the holding.
No. Not relying on is not the same as overruling. They would need to reject the argument as invalid to overrule it, and they did not do that. All they needed to do was show the excuses offered for DOMA had no relationship to it, or no rational connection to it. They did not address each of those individually.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8361 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
So you are saying that treating men and women equally is unconstitutional? Which amendment would that be?
The second section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states male and female are unequal. The Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification; there is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#8362 Nov 29, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The second section of the 14th Amendment explicitly states male and female are unequal. The Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification; there is no gender equality right in the Constitution.
Really? Where? Here is the Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.htm...

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Tony Rome 1,110,953
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Cancer On The pRe... 178,215
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 13 min Limbertwig 154,204
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 41 min Aprilvue 522
Michele Bachmann: Obama Won Because He's Black ... (Feb '14) 47 min emperorjohn 338
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr Captain Yesterday 32,685
No boost yet for Dems from fight with extremists 4 hr SirPrize 6
•••

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••