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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8670 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
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 If Prop 8 is upheld it will simply be voted on again every two years until its repealed.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 are right. Prop 8 has a short half-life. It might be 1 year. It might be three years. But it is going away by the end of President Obama's second term.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8671 Dec 8, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, there is plenty of speculation, and I may not be qualified to speculate. Then again, we have the brightest legal minds in the country at AFER certain that our side will win both cases, and we have NOM and their side absolutely certain that their side will win both cases. So it seems like my unqualified opinion might be just as good as anyone's.

What I worry is that these two cases were taken as a means to expand state's rights. From that view, SCOTUS might very well rule that CA citizens have the right to define their constitution withot interference from the federal government. They might simultaneously rule that the right of states to define marriage binds the federal government--or not.

Personally, I don't think the majority of SCOTUS will be impressed by the Romer precedent. Romer was overturned because it was too broad, taking away the right of a minority to even request rights and protections from the state. Whereas Prop 8 took away specifically the right to marriage but left GLBT's free to (successfully) pursue substantially all the rights and benefits thereof, the parallel is weak.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8672 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
The reason it was before the 9th was that it occurred in California, the jurisdiction of the 9th. They had no where else to go.

But the rest is essentially factual. Yet do you really want equal fundamental rights to be dependant on popular opinion? When you are the majority, it may be easy to say yes. If you were the minority, you might be better able to understand equal rights of a minority should never depend on popular opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court said: "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."

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#8673 Dec 8, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there is plenty of speculation, and I may not be qualified to speculate. Then again, we have the brightest legal minds in the country at AFER certain that our side will win both cases, and we have NOM and their side absolutely certain that their side will win both cases. So it seems like my unqualified opinion might be just as good as anyone's.
What I worry is that these two cases were taken as a means to expand state's rights. From that view, SCOTUS might very well rule that CA citizens have the right to define their constitution withot interference from the federal government. They might simultaneously rule that the right of states to define marriage binds the federal government--or not.
Personally, I don't think the majority of SCOTUS will be impressed by the Romer precedent. Romer was overturned because it was too broad, taking away the right of a minority to even request rights and protections from the state. Whereas Prop 8 took away specifically the right to marriage but left GLBT's free to (successfully) pursue substantially all the rights and benefits thereof, the parallel is weak.
As I stated to We The Sheeple and have been saying for the last 4 years.......Prop 8 will NOT be upheld by SCOTUS because of the simple fact that there are 18,000 still legally married Same-Sex Couples, whose marriages remained legal, valid and recognized in spite of the passage of Prop 8......and to simply tell other Same-Sex Couples that they were to late because they didn't marry before the passage of Prop 8......would be a clear violation of their Due Process and Equal Protection.

I also believe that had the CSSC not been wishy-washy between the re Marriage ruling in May of 2008 and the Strauss vs Horton ruling in May of 2009.......this matter would have already been resolved.

I do believe that SCOTUS has ruled in the past on the rights of individual Americans and I don't really see this changing........and if it does, well then everything I believe and have fought for would mean that this Country doesn't care about our Constitution any more and that would be incredibly sad!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8674 Dec 8, 2012
There is no fundamental right to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#8675 Dec 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
There is no fundamental right to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection.
Then it's a good thing that Marriage isn't be redefined......all it is doing is being INCLUSIVE instead of EXCLUSIVE!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8676 Dec 8, 2012
Same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. Until the 21st Century, all written laws defined marriage as gender diverse.

You're mom and dad were inclusive when you were conceived, those unique relationships always exclude same sex couples. Don't blame others for natural law.

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; just the opposite. The Constitution gives us all personal freedom but nobody; not even a state has the right to define marriage as two men or two women.

Things will get interesting when the US Supreme Court hears same sex marriage cases.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8677 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I gave up on Christianity after meeting all these phony baloney make believe Judgmental Christians here on Topix. You have no idea what a fundamental right is. Excuse me. Are you saying that buildings are part of the Constitution upon which our laws are based?

You must be kidding.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8678 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Communist!
Name calling?

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#8679 Dec 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. Until the 21st Century, all written laws defined marriage as gender diverse.
You're mom and dad were inclusive when you were conceived, those unique relationships always exclude same sex couples. Don't blame others for natural law.
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; just the opposite. The Constitution gives us all personal freedom but nobody; not even a state has the right to define marriage as two men or two women.
Things will get interesting when the US Supreme Court hears same sex marriage cases.
Actually A STATE DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE ANY WAY THEY WANT TO.......you might want to read the 10th Amendment!!!

Because the 2 cases already having rulings from the lower courts, all that will be said is what has already been said......in the Prop 8 case, the proponents have already lost in 2 previous court rulings and there will be nothing new in their argument as to why Prop 8 should remain........but we will know soon enough!!!

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8680 Dec 8, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually A STATE DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE ANY WAY THEY WANT TO.......you might want to read the 10th Amendment!!!
Because the 2 cases already having rulings from the lower courts, all that will be said is what has already been said......in the Prop 8 case, the proponents have already lost in 2 previous court rulings and there will be nothing new in their argument as to why Prop 8 should remain........but we will know soon enough!!!
There needs to be a point of law under discussion that in the Court's opinion, needs to be addressed further. I believe they will address the issue of standing.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#8681 Dec 8, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually A STATE DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE ANY WAY THEY WANT TO.......you might want to read the 10th Amendment!!!
Because the 2 cases already having rulings from the lower courts, all that will be said is what has already been said......in the Prop 8 case, the proponents have already lost in 2 previous court rulings and there will be nothing new in their argument as to why Prop 8 should remain........but we will know soon enough!!!
==========
Whatever way a state defines something it still has to pass muster with the Supreme Law of the land. States have made all kinds of laws that didn't stand up to scrutiny of Constitution and Federal Law. So it will be with gays trying to co-op the word marriage from male and female joinings.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8682 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Whatever way a state defines something it still has to pass muster with the Supreme Law of the land. States have made all kinds of laws that didn't stand up to scrutiny of Constitution and Federal Law. So it will be with gays trying to co-op the word marriage from male and female joinings.
Marriage is simply the joining of two entities. What you are saying makes no sense at all.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8683 Dec 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Whatever way a state defines something it still has to pass muster with the Supreme Law of the land. States have made all kinds of laws that didn't stand up to scrutiny of Constitution and Federal Law. So it will be with gays trying to co-op the word marriage from male and female joinings.
DOMA is about to be dumped. Without DOMA, the tenth amendment leaves it up to the states. According to the Fourteenth, federal laws and fundamental citizenship rights need equal protection. End of game. You lose.

Gee, what will you whine about after that?

Since: Apr 10

Port-gentil, Gabon

#8684 Dec 8, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe you people say that, and then have the juevos to talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. Send your sister or daughter over for me to marry. I'm sure she would LOVE to marry a man that is not attracted to her. I'm sure our marriage would demonstrate the "ideal" of two people forced together who have no interest in one another.
Why would you put a gay man with a straight woman? That isn't going to bring happiness to EITHER of them. Marriage needs to be protected from YOU people, before you start bringing back ARRANGED marriages.
<quoted text>
They do in 6 US states, the DC, 2 US tribes and about a dozen nations around the world, with more locations joining all the time. You are not the one doing the "combining", so you have no power to tell people what combinations they may pursue.
<quoted text>
Not if you PAID me. The bible is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If I checked the bible, I would find rampant polygamy, concubines, daughters being SOLD to their husbands... that book is NOT a good guide for modern living.
<quoted text>
No, it's because dogs, cats and horses can't sign legal consent forms. Why do you people always have such difficulty distinguishing between animals and humans?
<quoted text>
Gay men belong with gay men, and lesbians belong with lesbians. Any other combinations for them is disrespectful to their humanity (not to mention disrespectful to their mis-matched partner).
<quoted text>
"Sin" is a fantasy concept, unrelated to the real world. Our Constitution doesn't forbid "sin", it doesn't mention it at all. In fact, it gives me the right to IGNORE your religious concepts entirely, and build a life without them.
If you think something is sinful, you're free to avoid it. But nothing gives you the right to make that decision for someone else.
And all of your excuses don't cover up the fact that this is STILL humans mistreating humans for poor, poor reasons.
SATAN exists and it's because of him than such animosity is found in the humanity.God condemned personally those sins by a big fire;this is HOW he punished SODOME and GHOMORRE(the entire world is starting to look like that too);now you have scientists that deny the GOD existence(SATAN's puppets and Illuminati members)to make lost all those that will believe their theories of big bang...cuz if you believe that GOD don't exist then you will do impure and non natural things like to f.ck a dog or a people of the same sex as yourself.SCIENCE was created by FRANCS macons and all Illuminati members to serve SATAN who wants to bring the entire humanity with him.SATAN is everywhere: in the governments,in the industries,in the churches,in the Science;he is everywhere because GOD damned the humanity to be tempted by SATAN until the day he will comes back to judge his world.YOU are warned.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8685 Dec 8, 2012
bourobou prince wrote:
<quoted text>SATAN exists and it's because of him than such animosity is found in the humanity.God condemned personally those sins by a big fire;this is HOW he punished SODOME and GHOMORRE(the entire world is starting to look like that too);now you have scientists that deny the GOD existence(SATAN's puppets and Illuminati members)to make lost all those that will believe their theories of big bang...cuz if you believe that GOD don't exist then you will do impure and non natural things like to f.ck a dog or a people of the same sex as yourself.SCIENCE was created by FRANCS macons and all Illuminati members to serve SATAN who wants to bring the entire humanity with him.SATAN is everywhere: in the governments,in the industries,in the churches,in the Science;he is everywhere because GOD damned the humanity to be tempted by SATAN until the day he will comes back to judge his world.YOU are warned.
Thanks for sharing your fantasies with us.

How long have you been under this delusion?

Since: Apr 10

Port-gentil, Gabon

#8686 Dec 8, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is simply the joining of two entities. What you are saying makes no sense at all.
Marriage was ordered by GOD to avoid the fornication...and GOD gave that to two creatures of opposite sex.This is why you can't have a baby with the union of two peoples of the same sex.Fornication is the union of two peoples of opposite sex out of the marriage link; today we have fornication from two peoples of same sex and since SATAN is trying to make rise the anger of GOD toward humanity,he uses his pastors and presidents to confirm the acceptance of the homosexual marriage...this earth will go down to a big hole and GOD will show his power the day when all humans would become worst than animals.YOU are warned.

Since: Apr 10

Port-gentil, Gabon

#8687 Dec 8, 2012
Homosexuality is an abomination in the GOD's eyes but a big weapon of SATAN in his will to bring many humans with him in the hell.ALL those pastors and the VATICAN that accepted to marry two peoples of the same sex are about to be hardly treated by GOD.Satan is everywhere and he uses all those that deny GOD to make 'em corrupt the societies and the new world order is working with all that.ONE day Illuminati will create the One world government and I guess SATAN would be the president;to prepare the strike against Jesus that will come to destroy all authorities and all their influences.GOD would come after to judge all of us.YOU are all warned.

Since: Apr 10

Port-gentil, Gabon

#8688 Dec 8, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for sharing your fantasies with us.
How long have you been under this delusion?
A demon that grabbed you while I was sleeping and that get chased by me in the name of Jesus and GOD...If you don't believe me now,you will believe me when you will die.

Since: Apr 10

Port-gentil, Gabon

#8689 Dec 8, 2012
"a demon that grabbed me"...demons exists and they are SATAN's servants...you should have the 3rd eye to see them when you are still awaken.

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 189,899
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min John Galt 1,262,830
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 35 min Dr Guru 194,406
News Majority wants Congress to reject Iran deal 54 min serfs up 71
News Carly Fiorina continues painting Hillary Clinto... 2 hr SirPrize 20
News Huckabee gets Fox facetime before debate rankings 3 hr Schnooki 1
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 6 hr ritedownthemiddle 34,401
More from around the web