Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9653 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

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

Montpelier, 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

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!!!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8391 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I pretty much agree.
this may be a sign of the apocalypse!
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
.
I agree with you except for the part above.
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
You don't need Kennedy for this one, the conservatives are drooling to push power back to the states. They can affirm the state's rights angle and be done without even using the word "gay".

You'd be surprised that I very much agree with the analysis in the DOMA cases so far...
States have a right to regulate their marriages.

I do however object entirely to the Prop 8 case where the votes were essentially surprised by the courts. Not something I like regarding ANY issue...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8392 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
in all caps doesn't change the fact that currently, on this day, some people can marry and you wouldn't be one of them.
so if they are the same, how could that be?

so yes, you can play semantics, but in reality....

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8393 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.
Sexist much?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8394 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in all caps doesn't change the fact that currently, on this day, some people can marry and you wouldn't be one of them.
so if they are the same, how could that be?
so yes, you can play semantics, but in reality....
In this case, reality is defined not by a set of laws, but how the couple lives their lives together. And their marriage is as real as any other. We simply want the law changed to recognize that reality.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8395 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in all caps doesn't change the fact that currently, on this day, some people can marry and you wouldn't be one of them.
so if they are the same, how could that be?
so yes, you can play semantics, but in reality....
But see, I am already legally married and have been for over 4 years now:~)

What I don't have is federal recognition and federal rights, benefits and privileges......but I believe DOMA will either be repealed by the Courts or by Congress!!!!

See, the states rights are being infringed upon by DOMA Section 3.......and the federal government does NOT have the right to pick and choose which marriage gets federal recognition and which one doesn't.....that's clearly a violation of Due Process and Equal Protection!!!

Oh and I dare you to go up to a legally married Gay or Lesbian couple from Vermont and tell them that they have a "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage and aren't as married as you and your wife are........they probably won't have friendly responses towards you!!!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8396 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case, reality is defined not by a set of laws, but how the couple lives their lives together. And their marriage is as real as any other. We simply want the law changed to recognize that reality.
curious. do you understand a distinction between what you discuss and PUBLIC RECOGNITION which marriage is?

I lived with my girlfriend for ten years like we were married, but we weren't...
funny thing, guess why we married after all that time..
to have kids...curious isn't it?

You are free to live with an dlove and call anything a marriage you want. You are not entitled to make EVERYONE agree any more than the christians are...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8397 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
But see, I am already legally married and have been for over 4 years now:~)
gay marriages may go poof, maybe yes, maybe no, is that also true of straight marriages?
(no).
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

Oh and I dare you to go up to a legally married Gay
I would bring it up with any gay guy I know here and half the lesbians, not the other half of lesbians though, they are scary around here...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8398 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
this may be a sign of the apocalypse!
<quoted text>
I agree with you except for the part above.
<quoted text>
You don't need Kennedy for this one, the conservatives are drooling to push power back to the states. They can affirm the state's rights angle and be done without even using the word "gay".
You'd be surprised that I very much agree with the analysis in the DOMA cases so far...
States have a right to regulate their marriages.
I do however object entirely to the Prop 8 case where the votes were essentially surprised by the courts. Not something I like regarding ANY issue...
Do you really want equal fundamental rights to depend on popular opinion rather than the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment? Those who are a majority today may someday find themselves in the minority.

Equal rights should never depend on any vote.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (SCOTUS)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8399 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
curious. do you understand a distinction between what you discuss and PUBLIC RECOGNITION which marriage is?
I lived with my girlfriend for ten years like we were married, but we weren't...
funny thing, guess why we married after all that time..
to have kids...curious isn't it?
You are free to live with an dlove and call anything a marriage you want. You are not entitled to make EVERYONE agree any more than the christians are...
So, are you saying you could have had kids before marriage? or that you didn't fornicate before you got married? Either way, your reasons for getting married still are not required of others to get married for the same reason!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8400 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
gay marriages may go poof, maybe yes, maybe no, is that also true of straight marriages?
(no).
<quoted text>
I would bring it up with any gay guy I know here and half the lesbians, not the other half of lesbians though, they are scary around here...
Sorry, but SCOTUS DOESN'T have the right to dissolve otherwise legal marriages that the States deemed legal......that would be a gross violation of the 10 Amendment!!!

And I hardly doubt ANY STRAIGHT MARRIED COUPLE WOULD sit by and allow ANY COURT to invalidate their legal marriage without a fight, so don't expect legally married Gay and Lesbian couples too!!!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8401 Nov 29, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really want equal fundamental rights to depend on popular opinion rather than the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment? Those who are a majority today may someday find themselves in the minority.
Equal rights should never depend on any vote.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (SCOTUS)
As you would have it leads to the tyranny of the MINORITY!

We have to err to one side and the vote is a decent check that I do not like seeing negated.

If societies view is changing then I think its best you have to wait until it does...

unlike undoing SLAVERY which was a reason to have to step up...one that doesn't apply to you.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8402 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you saying you could have had kids before marriage? or that you didn't fornicate before you got married? Either way, your reasons for getting married still are not required of others to get married for the same reason!!!
Just the classic american story, two kids getting married to create more stability for when the little ones arrive...

without the possibility of kids, why would society even care of I am stable...

we don't!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8403 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but SCOTUS DOESN'T have the right to dissolve otherwise legal marriages that the States deemed legal......that would be a gross violation of the 10 Amendment!!!
And I hardly doubt ANY STRAIGHT MARRIED COUPLE WOULD sit by and allow ANY COURT to invalidate their legal marriage without a fight, so don't expect legally married Gay and Lesbian couples too!!!
The state voted to not recognize your marriage...all they need to do is say that vote counts.

so, it could NEVER happen, but if it does....

consistency much?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8404 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I lived with my girlfriend for ten years like we were married, but we weren't...
Did you live like you were married? Did you pledge to care for one another for your entire lives? Did you mix your assets and plan for your retirement together? Did you have a messy divorce where you fought over whose bed and whose couch? Did you give up half your savings to your "spouse" when you parted? Or were you just playing house for ten years? If so, your marriage would have been legally married on this side of the Connecticut.

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) 20 min OzRitz 1,348,304
News Obama lays out 2017 spending priorities in fina... 45 min serfs up 12
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr AMERICAN SUNSHINE 214,081
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Dr Guru 207,678
News 'BMI is a waste of time': Measurement is wrongl... 5 hr Ritual Habitual 1
News Donald Trump Says Criticism of Bill Clinton Is ... 5 hr Beaks 261
News Sarah Palin mocks Michelle Obama's anti-obesity... (Dec '10) 5 hr Ritual Habitual 6
More from around the web