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.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9920 Jan 14, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But bullies thrive in a climate of ignorance which you demand continued with regards to homosexuality. You oppose ALL gay rights.(your words)
It is your avatar that proclaims you are a water-boarder, a torturer, so what other conclusions are we to draw.
Liberal ideas = educated
Conservative ideas = ignorant

My avatar proclaims I am a surfer silly.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9921 Jan 14, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe SCOTUS will see this as a much bigger state's rights issue (even though as a court they should focus on the arguments presented) and rule in favor of the state. Then in 2014 we will vote to overturn Prop 8 and we will have gay marriage in the Golden state.
Not exactly what I want but pretty obvious none the less.
If it was in another State, you might be right, but the situation with Prop 8 is not that easily defined BECAUSE of the existing legal, valid and recognized Same-Sex Couples who are married and have been for almost 5 years now!!!

If for some strange reason a majority can not come to a decision on Prop 8 as to it's true Constitutionality......I believe that SCOTUS will simply rule on the Article 3 Standing issue and overturn the 9th's ruling leaving Judge Walker's ruling in effect.

If SCOTUS should overturn the 9th's ruling on the merits of the case, then yes, a vote will take place, but probably in 2014, or 2016.

We will see soon enough and you can move to Texas, but eventually Marriage Equality will happen there as well.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9922 Jan 14, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe SCOTUS will see this as a much bigger state's rights issue (even though as a court they should focus on the arguments presented) and rule in favor of the state. Then in 2014 we will vote to overturn Prop 8 and we will have gay marriage in the Golden state.
Not exactly what I want but pretty obvious none the less.
One more thing, the ruling from SCOTUS if on the merits will be about the argument that is present to them.......Charles Cooper has already lost on that argument twice now........I don't believe a third time will be a charm for him or the proponents of Prop 8!!!!

Denying the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians WILL NOT make heterosexuals more procreative responsible......and that is basically Cooper's WHOLE argument in a nut shell!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9923 Jan 14, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberal ideas = educated
Conservative ideas = ignorant
My avatar proclaims I am a surfer silly.
All true. It was not always that way. I actually preferred the world when the liberals were the populists and radicals and the conservatives were thoughtful and careful. Unfortunately, the role reversal has not been good for America.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9924 Jan 14, 2013
sickofit wrote:
HOW DOES MORE FREEDOM AND MORE EQUALITY ADD SEGREGATION MORON????
I'll explain it to you, maybe you can learn:

Same sex marriage = gender segregation
Same race marriage = racial segregation
Same ethnic group marriage = ethnic segregation

Do you understand? Before the 21st century, all written law defined marriage as gender integrated, between male and female. In the West we had a perfect affirmative action of 1:1, man and woman. That gender integrated institution had gender diversity harmony.

Now, same sex marriage supporters want a new standard of gender apartheid marriage; that's why I support marriage as one man and one woman.

.
sickofit wrote:
You nazi fascist are just total uneducated inbred fools.....GO AWAY LIAR.
^^^You can see from the argument above; many same sex marriage supporters don't use reason; this is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. They base their opinions on how it makes them feel instead of considering the consequences. From the question above; they find it difficult to think about the things they support.

If you love rationality; keep marriage one man and one woman.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9925 Jan 14, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. Thanks for being honest. Welcome to the gay agenda.
This is why I oppose ALL gay rights. I used to take the live and let live position. But I realized you don't respect my families rights at all and you want to indoctrinate my kids.
Again, your honesty is refreshing.
Your justification for refusing to treat gay people as fully human is supported by your fear they will be seen as fully human by your kids.

That helps explain your aversion to the E word. It also reveals why the only hope for gay people to realize the desire to be treated as fully human under the law, relies on convincing those who share your belief they are not fully human, that they actually are human, or at least are human enough to be treated as you would treat yourself, under the law.
sickofit

Hayfield, MN

#9927 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'll explain it to you, maybe you can learn:
Same sex marriage = gender segregation
Same race marriage = racial segregation
Same ethnic group marriage = ethnic segregation
Do you understand? Before the 21st century, all written law defined marriage as gender integrated, between male and female. In the West we had a perfect affirmative action of 1:1, man and woman. That gender integrated institution had gender diversity harmony.
Now, same sex marriage supporters want a new standard of gender apartheid marriage; that's why I support marriage as one man and one woman.
.
<quoted text>^^^You can see from the argument above; many same sex marriage supporters don't use reason; this is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. They base their opinions on how it makes them feel instead of considering the consequences. From the question above; they find it difficult to think about the things they support.
If you love rationality; keep marriage one man and one woman.
Ok hitler keep telling those lies to yoruself...YOURSELF AND YORU FELLOW, KKK NAZIS ARE ONLY ONE LISTENING TO YOUR MADE UP LIE BS CRAP..........I cantw ait until all you hitler lvoers die off....most people under 40 support same sex marriage being legal......JUST YOU OLD NAZI PIGS WHO DONT....

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9928 Jan 14, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
Liberal ideas = educated
Conservative ideas = ignorant
My avatar proclaims I am a surfer silly.
When you advocate that children cannot be taught facts, yes that does lead to ignorance.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9929 Jan 14, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes...now we are getting to the truth. Its the standard liberal "we really are right" argument so shut up and conform.
That is the difference between you and I. I would never dream of trying to use the public school system to teach your kids what I believe against your wishes. I realize that even though I do believe you are wrong and your ideas are harmful to society I respect your right to them. I would even defend your right to those freedoms so long as you don't harm anyone. Live and let live. Its called tolerance.
You on the other hand believe that I am just wrong. You have no problem using the public schools to teach my kids what you believe because your view is more enlightened and mine is I am what is holding us all back from some cherished utopian society. My kids need YOU to save them from me.
Again, you prove my point and the reason for my position. I used to take the live and let live position...but since you don't respect my views and are actively pursuing my kids I must oppose all gay rights.
Thanks for the honesty. If I push you guys enough it always comes out in the end.
And thanks to you for admitting your willingness and desire to harm gay people is based on fear and prejudice, rather than any legitimate governmental interest.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9930 Jan 14, 2013
sickofit wrote:
Ok hitler keep telling those lies to yoruself...YOURSELF AND YORU FELLOW,
Please tell us what you think is untrue in this statement:

Ssme seex marriage = gender segregation marriage
Same race marriage = racial segregation
Same ethnic group marriage = ethnic segregation

[]Before the 21st century, all written law defined marriage as gender integrated, between male and female. In the West we had a perfect affirmative action of 1:1, man and woman. That gender integrated institution had gender diversity harmony.

Now, same sex marriage supporters want a new standard of gender apartheid marriage; that's why I support marriage as one man and one woman.

.

[QUOTE who="sickofit"KKK NAZIS ARE ONLY ONE LISTENING TO YOUR MADE UP LIE BS CRAP..........I cantw ait until all you hitler lvoers die off....most people under 40 support same sex marriage being legal......JUST YOU OLD NAZI PIGS WHO DONT....[/QUOTE]I stand by what I wrote before:

[]You can see from the [quote] above; many same sex marriage supporters don't use reason; this is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. They base their opinions on how it makes them feel instead of considering the consequences. From the question above; they find it difficult to think about the things they support.[ That's why they defame their political opponents and post hate speech!]
If you love rationality; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9931 Jan 14, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
When you advocate that children cannot be taught facts, yes that does lead to ignorance.
When you mischaracterize the arguments of political opponents; that leads to demagogy and hate politics.

That's why I support marriage as one man and one woman; human nature defines a reproductive human couple as male and female.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9932 Jan 14, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
And thanks to you for admitting your willingness and desire to harm gay people is based on fear and prejudice, rather than any legitimate governmental interest.
The issue has nothing to do with a "desire to harm gay people" because many gay people want to keep marriage as one man and one woman:

Xavier Bongibault, a member of a group called Plus Gay Sans Mariage -- More Gay Without Marriage -- said the demonstration is not for the homophobic.

He said many people who are gay or support gay rights believe marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals.

"In France marriage is not a contract about love: it is a contract that creates the framework for the protection of children. I believe a child must have a mother and father," he said. "Everyone has the right to get married. I am homosexual but if I wanted to get married I could find a woman. Marriage has certain conditions, the main one of which is that it has to be between a man and woman."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9933 Jan 14, 2013
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Denial of marriage equality provides nothing for opposite sex couples, while only harming same sex couples and their children. It is irrational prejudice.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9934 Jan 14, 2013
Prejudice, no matter how popular, has no place in the law.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9935 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please tell us what you think is untrue in this statement:
Ssme seex marriage = gender segregation marriage
Same race marriage = racial segregation
Same ethnic group marriage = ethnic segregation
Sorry, but Gay and Lesbian couples getting married is not gender segregation........it has to do more with who one is attracted to!!!

There are interracial Gay and Lesbian couples as well as those of the same ethnic background.

You really keep trying to make this world stay in your view, but it isn't going to!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9936 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue has nothing to do with a "desire to harm gay people" because many gay people want to keep marriage as one man and one woman:
Xavier Bongibault, a member of a group called Plus Gay Sans Mariage -- More Gay Without Marriage -- said the demonstration is not for the homophobic.
He said many people who are gay or support gay rights believe marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals.
"In France marriage is not a contract about love: it is a contract that creates the framework for the protection of children. I believe a child must have a mother and father," he said. "Everyone has the right to get married. I am homosexual but if I wanted to get married I could find a woman. Marriage has certain conditions, the main one of which is that it has to be between a man and woman."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...
The United Stated of America is not France and therefore we don't follow they're thought process!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9937 Jan 14, 2013
They're should be their.....in my last post!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9938 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please tell us what you think is untrue in this statement:
Ssme seex marriage = gender segregation marriage
Same race marriage = racial segregation
Same ethnic group marriage = ethnic segregation.
So, according to your formula, everybody must marry someone of a different race and ethnicity in order to assure diversity.

It makes far more sense to allow individuals to choose whether to marry someone outside their race, ethnicity, or gender if that's what they want to do. Nobody suggests that we should FORCE people to marry outside their race or ethncity.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9939 Jan 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue has nothing to do with a "desire to harm gay people" because many gay people want to keep marriage as one man and one woman....
Some black people think we should practice racial segregation. So what?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9940 Jan 14, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Sorry, but Gay and Lesbian couples getting married is not gender segregation........it has to do more with who one is attracted to!!!
That's true; homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter are two examples, even a gay man is attracted to the woman who will be the mother of his child.

Changing the definition of marriage to create a new standard of marriage apartheid harms marriage diversity of male/female union.

.
NorCal Native wrote:
There are interracial Gay and Lesbian couples as well as those of the same ethnic background.
You really keep trying to make this world stay in your view, but it isn't going to!!!
They can be gender segregated but not racially segregated; what's your point? They are still fostering a new model of gender discrimination in marriage.

Same sex marriage is bad for so MANY reasons; even many homosexuals agree to protect marriage"
Xavier Bongibault, a member of a group called Plus Gay Sans Mariage -- More Gay Without Marriage -- said the demonstration is not for the homophobic.

He said many people who are gay or support gay rights believe marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals.

"In France marriage is not a contract about love: it is a contract that creates the framework for the protection of children. I believe a child must have a mother and father," he said. "Everyone has the right to get married. I am homosexual but if I wanted to get married I could find a woman. Marriage has certain conditions, the main one of which is that it has to be between a man and woman."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...

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) 21 min Julia 289,180
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 26 min flack 1,601,753
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 30 min loose cannon 242,616
News Election tampering by Russia still without evid... 19 hr southern at heart 28
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) Thu Fuggleton 37,425
News Mitt Romney surges, leads Obama in polls (Oct '12) Sep 20 Oneryders Daughter 13
News Opinion: The Fatal Flaw for Republicans in Grah... Sep 20 fingers mcgurke 1
More from around the web