Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Skanner

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.

Comments
7,821 - 7,840 of 9,656 Comments Last updated Nov 19, 2013

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8363
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

You nailed it, NorCal, thanks!

No gender equality in the US Constitution. Holland, Mexico, Portugal, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark all have gender equality rights in their Constitutions; they all have same sex marriage too.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8364
Nov 29, 2012
 
Brian_G wrote:
You nailed it, NorCal, thanks!
No gender equality in the US Constitution. Holland, Mexico, Portugal, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark all have gender equality rights in their Constitutions; they all have same sex marriage too.
I have never seen the part of the equal protection clause that specifically excludes gender.

Can you post it?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8365
Nov 29, 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?
.....
Why would animus no longer be part of DOMA. DOMA was built on animus, and those that support it do so through animus only.

It's continues existence is based only on animus.

Try again.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8366
Nov 29, 2012
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
actually that quip was as lame as your analysis...

Its set rules of construction, an appellate judge can overrule the analysis of a lower decision and/or the holding...
that occurred in the Prop 8 case in many ways including the removal of a finding of a fundamental right to gay marriage.
In the DOMA case, the appeal court specifically found no basis in animus which negates that as a point of law in the "law of the case".
So its the difference between how legal precedents work and the bullfloppy you erroneously think relates...

you usually don't "get it" so i would think you would ask instead of insult and try to bash me over the head with your not knowing!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8367
Nov 29, 2012
 
Brian_G wrote:
You nailed it, NorCal, thanks!
No gender equality in the US Constitution. Holland, Mexico, Portugal, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark all have gender equality rights in their Constitutions; they all have same sex marriage too.
No, all I did was prove you were wrong!!!
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8368
Nov 29, 2012
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Not relying on is not the same as overruling. They would need to reject the argument as invalid to overrule it,
which they specifically and expressly do...

"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."

The specifically hold no basis in animus.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8369
Nov 29, 2012
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would animus no longer be part of DOMA. DOMA was built on animus, and those that support it do so through animus only.
It's continues existence is based only on animus.
Try again.
its just your opinion versus that of the federal courts who reviewed the DOMA cases...

Guess who I will go with?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8370
Nov 29, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
actually that quip was as lame as your analysis...
Its set rules of construction, an appellate judge can overrule the analysis of a lower decision and/or the holding...
that occurred in the Prop 8 case in many ways including the removal of a finding of a fundamental right to gay marriage.
In the DOMA case, the appeal court specifically found no basis in animus which negates that as a point of law in the "law of the case".
So its the difference between how legal precedents work and the bullfloppy you erroneously think relates...
you usually don't "get it" so i would think you would ask instead of insult and try to bash me over the head with your not knowing!
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.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••