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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8371 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You are absurd. The Ninth Circuit Court left out some of Walkers arguments because they wished to narrow the ruling, making it less likely to require intervention by SCOTUS. Including the arguments you mentioned greatly broadened Walker's original ruling. The fact that the Circuit wished to focus on the specific matter of Prop 8 does not mean they disagreed with the rest of Walker's arguments. They simply felt that it was unnecessary or unwise to invoke them at this point.
Yes, it was probably a political decision.
all you are saying is what I said, that the ELIMINATED those points from the decision...
is calling me absurd your way of agreeing with me?

So, as to the DOMA case, the court ELIMINATED any part of the decision that relies on animus, so using the old case when the courts found that rationale to be lacking is kinda not right...

right?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8372 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all you are saying is what I said, that the ELIMINATED those points from the decision...
is calling me absurd your way of agreeing with me?
So, as to the DOMA case, the court ELIMINATED any part of the decision that relies on animus, so using the old case when the courts found that rationale to be lacking is kinda not right...
right?
It means that Walker's findings did not become binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit. That does not prevent his opinion influencing future jurors.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8373 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that Walker's findings did not become binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit. That does not prevent his opinion influencing future jurors.
right, so, AS I SAID, the language Not Yet Equal was using has been eliminated from the decision, so you agree now right?

And there aren't jurors in appeals...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8374 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, so, AS I SAID, the language Not Yet Equal was using has been eliminated from the decision, so you agree now right?
And there aren't jurors in appeals...
My mistake. I meant "jurist," not "juror."
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8375 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
My mistake. I meant "jurist," not "juror."
yes, Walkers decision could influence a jurist, but I would think not so much since it was already overruled by the most liberal appeals circuit...

again,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/gay-marri...

is a very good article which also agrees with us that Baker does not bear on DOMA, but as I suggest likely could as to Prop 8.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8376 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, Walkers decision could influence a jurist, but I would think not so much since it was already overruled by the most liberal appeals circuit...
again,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/gay-marri...
is a very good article which also agrees with us that Baker does not bear on DOMA, but as I suggest likely could as to Prop 8.
The second page of the article doesn't mention Baker with regards to Prop 8 and as you have already been told, Baker vs Nelson doesn't apply to the Prop 8 case because they are NOT similarly situated!!!

California issued marriage license to Same-Sex Couples prior to the passage of Prop 8 and those legal marriages remain legal, valid and recognized today in spite of the passage of Prop 8........unlike in the Baker case where a marriage license was NEVER granted!!!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8377 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The second page of the article doesn't mention Baker with regards to Prop 8 and as you have already been told, Baker vs Nelson doesn't apply to the Prop 8 case because they are NOT similarly situated!!!
California issued marriage license to Same-Sex Couples prior to the passage of Prop 8 and those legal marriages remain legal, valid and recognized today in spite of the passage of Prop 8........unlike in the Baker case where a marriage license was NEVER granted!!!
once a fundamental right to marry is raised, so is Baker.
it MAY be raised in prop 8, and it WILL NOT be in DOMA.

Do we have a fundamental right to gay marriage?
Answer NO, citation Baker.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8378 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
once a fundamental right to marry is raised, so is Baker.
it MAY be raised in prop 8, and it WILL NOT be in DOMA.
Do we have a fundamental right to gay marriage?
Answer NO, citation Baker.
Seeing as I don't have a "GAY" Marriage......my answer would be no, but I do have the fundamental right to marry!!!

Baker doesn't apply to Prop 8 in ANY way, shape or form because MARRIAGE LICENSES WERE ISSUED IN CALIFORNIA prior to the passage of Prop 8.....no marriage license was issued in the Baker case.....NOT SIMILAR SITUATED!!!

The question with regards to Prop 8 is this......can a right to marry be removed once it has been granted?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8379 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
once a fundamental right to marry is raised, so is Baker.
it MAY be raised in prop 8, and it WILL NOT be in DOMA.
Do we have a fundamental right to gay marriage?
Answer NO, citation Baker.
The Prop 8 case in far more nuanced than you suggest. The plaintiffs are not asking SCOTUS to create a right to marry under the US Constitution. They are asking for protection of their rights under the US Constitution. The right to marry came from California's constitution. That right was taken away by the majority of California voters enacting legislation through the initiative process. The question is whether, under the federal constitution, states may take away rights from targeted minorities without compelling reason.

If Baker were the slam-dunk you want it to be, Perry would already be dead.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8380 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing as I don't have a "GAY" Marriage......my answer would be no, but I do have the fundamental right to marry!!!
Baker doesn't apply to Prop 8 in ANY way, shape or form because MARRIAGE LICENSES WERE ISSUED IN CALIFORNIA prior to the passage of Prop 8.....no marriage license was issued in the Baker case.....NOT SIMILAR SITUATED!!!
The question with regards to Prop 8 is this......can a right to marry be removed once it has been granted?
and that question begs the question is gay marriage a right or a mere legislative benefit offered and negated. Like if we were limit the age after which one could drive...
as I say, Baker MAY be injected into the Prop 8 case, but definitely not the DOMA ones...
BTW, even if you have a straight marriage, that doesn't give you a right to a gay marriage, so in that way, we are all equally barred from a gay marriage...
see how easy semantic arguments are?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8381 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and that question begs the question is gay marriage a right or a mere legislative benefit offered and negated.
Have you ever studied any marriage cases besides Baker? SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that marriage is a fundamental right. Hence, taking it away is not as easy as taking away benefits.

But benefits cannot be arbitrarily taken from targeted groups, either. We could not, for instance, decide that Mormons are ineligible for Social Security.
Like if we were limit the age after which one could drive...
as I say, Baker MAY be injected into the Prop 8 case, but definitely not the DOMA ones...
The opponents of same-sex marriage keep trying to insert Baker, but their attempts are consistently ignored.
BTW, even if you have a straight marriage, that doesn't give you a right to a gay marriage, so in that way, we are all equally barred from a gay marriage...
see how easy semantic arguments are?
I am aware of no jurisdiction that has "straight marraige" and "gay marriage." There is only marriage. See how stupid your semantics are?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8382 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The Prop 8 case in far more nuanced than you suggest. The plaintiffs are not asking SCOTUS to create a right to marry under the US Constitution. They are asking for protection of their rights under the US Constitution. The right to marry came from California's constitution. That right was taken away by the majority of California voters enacting legislation through the initiative process. The question is whether, under the federal constitution, states may take away rights from targeted minorities without compelling reason.
If Baker were the slam-dunk you want it to be, Perry would already be dead.
So in the same post you say how Baker is distinguishable, and then claim if it was strong it would have ended the case?

talk about a moving target.

Its simple. Unless or until the gays claim a right to gay marriage, Baker will lie in wait...
it may come up in the prop 8 case because gays will have to go to that argument when they learn that mere legislative benefits are given and taken away all the time....
like the bush tax cuts...
or a decision to have driving tests at age 65.

no compelling reason required, only RATIONAL...the only way you get a higher standard is to argue you have a fundamental right, and duck as Baker comes at you...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8383 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
So in the same post you say how Baker is distinguishable, and then claim if it was strong it would have ended the case?
talk about a moving target.
Its simple. Unless or until the gays claim a right to gay marriage, Baker will lie in wait...
it may come up in the prop 8 case because gays will have to go to that argument when they learn that mere legislative benefits are given and taken away all the time....
like the bush tax cuts...
or a decision to have driving tests at age 65.
no compelling reason required, only RATIONAL...the only way you get a higher standard is to argue you have a fundamental right, and duck as Baker comes at you...
It is just possible that "rational" will be redefined, legally, as rational--in the sense of logically and scientfically defensible. Up to now, anything reason you give is construed to be rational. Judge Walker deconstructed the Prop 8 proponents given reasons and confirmed that the assertions did not, in fact, provide a rational basis for discrimination. The Ninth Circuit agreed.

"Because the sky is blue" is just not going to fly.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8384 Nov 29, 2012
Quest wrote:
I have never seen the part of the equal protection clause that specifically excludes gender. Can you post it?
Norcal did: http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TKTVMFAMT2F09...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8385 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
No, all I did was prove you were wrong!!!
Not at all, NorCal posted this:

"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."

The US Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal. There are no gender equality rights, anywhere in the Constitution. Several other countries have constitutions with gender equality rights; those countries also have same sex marriage.

Think about it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8386 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
He continues to ignore the 19th amendment, even though we have been over this numerous times. Denial is strong in this one.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8387 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It is just possible that "rational" will be redefined, legally, as rational--in the sense of logically and scientfically defensible. Up to now, anything reason you give is construed to be rational..
they have already done so and called it a "heightened rational basis" or rational basis "with teeth". I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS picks this up and sets a new standard without specifically saying they did so...

Interestingly enough, this is because the courts cannot find a fundamental right, nor a suspect class....
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Judge Walker deconstructed the Prop 8 proponents given reasons and confirmed that the assertions did not, in fact, provide a rational basis for discrimination. The Ninth Circuit agreed.
I agree, but as can be seen in your own posts, while Walker claimed he was using rational basis, clearly he was not. And the 9th picked up on that and absolutely did not agree...
Almost nothing of Walker's reasoning was carried forward. The one part, that all opposition must be animus will never survive...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

"Because the sky is blue" is just not going to fly.
this WOULD be a non-rational reason to deny marriage to gays...

For what its worth (meaning just to get it out there I know you guys will say its of no worth) I don't think the separate is un-equal argument is as strong as you think.

It is completely rational, even on a heightened basis to distinguish between gay and straight relationships as different as long as equality is preserved as closely as possible in legitimate ways.

I know you will repeat the maxim back to me, but as i said, I do not think its a strong an argument while I am sure you think its a lock...

But I think THAT fight is WAY down the road. IMHO, the scotus will gladly take the DOMA cases, and affirm them. It is a state's rights issue and they have signaled a move back to that with the obamacare decision so they can resolve it on that basis alone. This will allow them to punt on Prop 8 which is a wacky posture and is already limited to CA so they will wait for more of a conflict between states and districts.

what about you?
what do you think?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8388 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
this WOULD be a non-rational reason to deny marriage to gays...
For what its worth (meaning just to get it out there I know you guys will say its of no worth) I don't think the separate is un-equal argument is as strong as you think.
It is completely rational, even on a heightened basis to distinguish between gay and straight relationships as different as long as equality is preserved as closely as possible in legitimate ways.
I know you will repeat the maxim back to me, but as i said, I do not think its a strong an argument while I am sure you think its a lock...
But I think THAT fight is WAY down the road. IMHO, the scotus will gladly take the DOMA cases, and affirm them. It is a state's rights issue and they have signaled a move back to that with the obamacare decision so they can resolve it on that basis alone. This will allow them to punt on Prop 8 which is a wacky posture and is already limited to CA so they will wait for more of a conflict between states and districts.
what about you?
what do you think?
I pretty much agree. Regarding Prop 8, specifically, nobody on the court should want to be involved. Justices who might like the opportunity to confirm the opinion of the Ninth Circuit will take the safe finesse and vote against hearing it. Those who would like to overturn the Ninth Circuit can see that Prop 8 would quickly be overturned at the ballot box, probably in 2016. This would represent an unnecessary and embarrassing intervention of the court. Chief Justice Roberts, in particular, is young enough to care quite a bit what the world thinks of his court in ten, twenty, or thirty years. He can see which way the tides are turning. Even if he had a predilection to overturn the Ninth Circuit, he would see both the futility and the stain it would leave on his legacy.

The people most likely to vote to hear Perry are Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. They are arrogant enough to want their say even if they recognize that they won't have the last word. Neither Kennedy nor Roberts is likely to join them in engaging the court in a dead-end but controversial case. And, if conventional wisdom is correct and the rest of the court wishes to affirm Perry, their best move is declare game over.

Note that, even if SCOTUS rules on Perry, no broad precedents will be set. The Ninth Ciruit has aready narrowed the case to California. SCOTUS will not broaden the scope with a sweeping opinion either way.

As for DOMA, I remain optimistic. I think that the chance that Kennedy will swing with the liberals is high indeed. Plus we have a sigificant group of rulings at the trial court and circuit levels that consistently favor overturning DOMA. There is actually no good legal reason for SCOTUS to get involved. My guess, however, is the court will confirm the lower court decisions on terms as narrow as it can construe.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8389 Nov 29, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
He continues to ignore the 19th amendment, even though we have been over this numerous times. Denial is strong in this one.
The 19th Amendment is explicitly limited to "The right of citizens of the United States to vote", it doesn't grant gender equality. Here's the entire text:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Keep America free and keep marriage male/female.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8390 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and that question begs the question is gay marriage a right or a mere legislative benefit offered and negated. Like if we were limit the age after which one could drive...
as I say, Baker MAY be injected into the Prop 8 case, but definitely not the DOMA ones...
BTW, even if you have a straight marriage, that doesn't give you a right to a gay marriage, so in that way, we are all equally barred from a gay marriage...
see how easy semantic arguments are?
I DON'T HAVE A "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" MARRIAGE.......I HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF MARRIAGE OTHER CALIFORNIANS HAD WHEN I GOT MARRIED!!!!

You can play the dumbazz semantic game all ya want......but frankly all that Gay and Lesbian couples want is the right to marry....just like opposite-sex marriages currently enjoy!!!

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min Grey Ghost 1,656,997
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 11 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 37,507
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 12 hr TmCln 8,788
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 hr Las Cruces Retiree 243,089
News Palin: Democrats spreading misinformation and lies (Sep '08) 17 hr Palmermomma 11
News In Political Ads, Christian Left Mounts Sermoni... (Jul '09) 23 hr Faith In GAWD 2
News Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party? (Jan '08) Dec 9 was auch immer 29,315
More from around the web