Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 20 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.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#8650 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
I said it was always between opposite sexes. You bring in "1 man and 1 woman" and they arranged marriages? This is why I claimed earlier you are irrational and a bit hysterical. I don't need to comment on your imagination.
Thanks for sharing your views on my "mythical book" but I will post what I post.
And I will continue to point out how wrong you are about the compelling State interest you claim California has to not allow Same-Sex Couples the right to marry!!!

See, my wife and I legally got married 4 1/2 years ago in our home state of California......and guess what, our marriage is as VALID, LEGAL AND RECOGNIZED today as it was before the passage of Prop 8......so, all you have done is post what you believe is the way things are, but Prop 8 was only applied proactively....not retroactive and therefore in spite of the wording in Section 7.5........those 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples, remain intact!!!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8651 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
on our money, in the pledge, in every state of the union address since the beginning of time??
Actually, the addition of god to the pledge happened in 1954.

In god we trust was added to our coins in 1864 but was not made the official motto until 1956.

The oath of office does NOT contain the words, "so help me god."

When a politician says "god bless..." they are just pandering to those who don't understand the meaning of the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8652 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. "
Nope. And this is an important point, in loving, that is was a race based statute made it per se unconstitutional. Yet this quote shows this is NOT TRUE of gays...why do YOU think that is..
I know you will say "prejudice" but why do you REALLY think that is?
Loving was specifically about marriage, and found it is a fundamental right of all persons.

Romer and Lawrence were not about marriage. The court can only address issues presented. They were about using the law to harm gay people with no legitimate governmental interest. The court said majorities cannot deny equal rights without a legitimate governmental interest.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8653 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
1) There is no fundamental right to marry your own sex
2) "Failed every time"? Really?
3) Here is a compelling reason in CA:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.
Yes, that amendment was added after the Ca. Supreme Court said the Ca. Constitution required marriage equality. A popular vote was used to deny equal treatment, and that addition has been found to violate the federal constitution, was affirmed by the appellate court, and waiting review by the Supreme Court.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8654 Dec 7, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the addition of god to the pledge happened in 1954.
yup, what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>

In god we trust was added to our coins in 1864 but was not made the official motto until 1956.
yup, what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>

The oath of office does NOT contain the words, "so help me god."
who said it did?

the constitution protects us from govt, not the govt from us, so you confuse how that works at the very basic level...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8655 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving was specifically about marriage, and found it is a fundamental right of all persons.
and they decided baker afterwards...
in which they specifically affirm the rationale that gays are not included.

and again, see how the non marriage cases do not effect the marriage analysis as they did in loving with the overturn of all race based statutes, again, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8656 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
1) There is no fundamental right to marry your own sex
2) "Failed every time"? Really?
3) Here is a compelling reason in CA:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.
That law violates one's fundamental rights without any compelling reason to do so.

NEXT

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8657 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Did I say it did in my post?
2) Do a little research on the Bible and its history in our law. It's influence is undeniable.
What a dufus you are. The Ten Commandments are the core of the Biblical ethical system, yet only two, murder and theft are codified. I would hardly call that an influence would you?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8658 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and they decided baker afterwards...
in which they specifically affirm the rationale that gays are not included.
and again, see how the non marriage cases do not effect the marriage analysis as they did in loving with the overturn of all race based statutes, again, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
Again, Baker was decided at a time when the law not only allowed, but required punishment for being gay. Those laws have since that time been declared unconstitutional. We'll have to see if an how they address Baker this time around, now that subsequent decisions have said your prejudice is no longer a valid excuse to harm gay people for no legitimate reason.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8659 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Baker was decided at a time when the law not only allowed, but required punishment for being gay. Those laws have since that time been declared unconstitutional. We'll have to see if an how they address Baker this time around,
I know how one court looked at it:

"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. "

and as I asked and you continue to ignore, why do you think that is?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8660 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I know how one court looked at it:
"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. "
and as I asked and you continue to ignore, why do you think that is?
I told you. They haven't yet held hearings on marriage equality.

Courts can only rule on the issue before them, and it hasn't been heard by the Supreme court yet.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8661 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
yup, what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?
<quoted text>
yup, what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?
<quoted text>
who said it did?
the constitution protects us from govt, not the govt from us, so you confuse how that works at the very basic level...
Since I was responding to your notion that god was part of the U.S.'since the beginning of time' in the pledge, on money etc, I merely pointed out the actual facts.

But to answer the question you now raise: "what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?" I would say that those with a particular religious belief are using the government to enact laws contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the country. Belief in a singular god, while widely held as true, is not universally held as true. I do not believe the government has the right ("Congress shall make NO law...") to tell me that there IS a god, and that there is only ONE god and to enact laws based upon religious dogma.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8662 Dec 7, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I was responding to your notion that god was part of the U.S.'since the beginning of time' in the pledge, on money etc, I merely pointed out the actual facts.
But to answer the question you now raise: "what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?" I would say that those with a particular religious belief are using the government to enact laws contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the country. Belief in a singular god, while widely held as true, is not universally held as true. I do not believe the government has the right ("Congress shall make NO law...") to tell me that there IS a god, and that there is only ONE god and to enact laws based upon religious dogma.
Agreed.

It also confirms the fears of the founders about religion controlling the government were based on the facts of history. They knew religious factions would try to impose their religious beliefs on and into the government. They tried to prevent that, but were not entirely successful, as the pledge, money, laws based entirely on religious beliefs of some groups at the expense of others, etc, demonstrate.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8663 Dec 7, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the addition of god to the pledge happened in 1954.
In god we trust was added to our coins in 1864 but was not made the official motto until 1956.
Oh just in time for McCarthyism. What a wonderful pedigree!

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8664 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Another "great" substantive post by Mona..
does he get that his posts then prove animus by gays against the religious?
consistency?
Is anyone else tired of seeing him bully?
I mean you guys pay a lot of lop service towards dealing with bullies, but not when they are in your ranks I guess...
consistency is not your virtue...
Mona just takes cheap shots. He always has. No worries. The only harm is the boredom from it.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8665 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that amendment was added after the Ca. Supreme Court said the Ca. Constitution required marriage equality. A popular vote was used to deny equal treatment, and that addition has been found to violate the federal constitution, was affirmed by the appellate court, and waiting review by the Supreme Court.
Hmmm...all true. Yet another way to tell events is more like this:

-Prop 22 passed by a majority vote.

-The CA Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional "legalizing" gay marriage in the state.

-The court was asked to stay that ruling until after an election just months away. Prop 8 was on the ballot. They declined thereby setting up a precarious situation of the Prop 8 passed. No one thought it would.

-Prop 8 passed by a majority vote placing the precise language of Prop 22 into the Constitution and out of the reach of judicial "interpretation".

-Gay activists brought the Perry case to a gay federal judge who ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional at the federal level. It was no accident the case was taken up in that district.

-The uber liberal 9th circuit upheld the gay judges ruling (no surprise).

-Now the SCOTUS will hear the appeal.

With all that said, do you really think the SCOTUS will allow the Constitutional process in a state to be over-ruled by the legal wranglings of gay activists? I don't think they will. A lot is said about shifting public opinion but at the end of the day would the court not see this as a state's rights vs feds issue? Marriage laws are defined at the state level. Always have been.

In any case, I must admit it really doesn't matter. If Prop 8 is upheld it will simply be voted on again every two years until its repealed.

Am I wrong?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8666 Dec 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
That law violates one's fundamental rights without any compelling reason to do so.
NEXT
No one has the fundamental right to marry their own sex. That is just nonsense.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8667 Dec 7, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
What a dufus you are. The Ten Commandments are the core of the Biblical ethical system, yet only two, murder and theft are codified. I would hardly call that an influence would you?
Well first of all I am very disappointed in you Lulu! Resorting to name calling is beneath you. Where is the love and tolerance? Shame on you.

And second, you clearly have no desire to learn about legal history. Take 5 minutes on Google. Or try taking a trip to Washington DC. Scripture is inscribed in the walls of the buildings and monuments.

I am sure you know about Moses holding the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court building.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8668 Dec 7, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh just in time for McCarthyism. What a wonderful pedigree!
Communist!

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#8669 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
-Now the SCOTUS will hear the appeal.
With all that said, do you really think the SCOTUS will allow the Constitutional process in a state to be over-ruled by the legal wranglings of gay activists? I don't think they will. A lot is said about shifting public opinion but at the end of the day would the court not see this as a state's rights vs feds issue? Marriage laws are defined at the state level. Always have been.
In any case, I must admit it really doesn't matter. If Prop 8 is upheld it will simply be voted on again every two years until its repealed.
Am I wrong?
Nope, you're not wrong about the voting to repeal Prop 8 IF and that's a big IF SCOTUS should rule it Constitutional, BUT I believe that SCOTUS is specifically looking at the Prop 8 case with regards to the Article 3 Standing issue and if they rule that the proponents of Prop 8 did not have standing, then they will more than likely overturn the 9th's ruling and uphold Judge Walker's ruling, but I'm pretty certain that there will be PLENTY of speculation on how SCOTUS will rule between now and June of 2013.

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) 4 min red and right 1,223,576
News Smile. We love you. We hate you. At the same time (Jul '09) 8 min Len is Disgusted 42
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min red and right 187,742
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min Sunshine 180,141
News John Kasich: WH run 'looks pretty good' 2 hr goonsquad 4
News Poll: Job approval for Congress at record low (Aug '11) 19 hr swedenforever 28
News Carter gets cold shoulder in Israel 23 hr Jeff Brightone 1
More from around the web