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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10150 Sep 15, 2013
Carmiana wrote:
Any gay who would sue a Christian for not participating in same sex marriage ceremonies is going against the amendment that states that it is your freedom to openly practice your own religion.
Go get united by someone who is not Christian, like the justice of peace.
If Christians are being forced to participate in same sex ceremonies then Christians would not be allowed to freely practice their own religion. Most Christians don't believe that two people of the same gender should be together whether it be sexually or marriage, they believe that it should one man for one woman. So why should they be forced to break their beliefs.
The KKK use the same excuse.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10151 Sep 15, 2013
Nobody invited the KKK to their wedding but same sex marriage supporters are inviting bids from Christian wedding service providers and every news story claims they'll sue you if you decline the bid. The same sex marriage movement is more a racket than politics.

If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10152 Sep 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't slavery and the segragationists all support same sex marriage.
Racial segregationists do not all support same sex marriage. The reality is, most bigots are prejudiced against multiple minority groups.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage brings a new standard that destroys marriage's perfect affirmative action 1:1 diversity and gender integration in favor of gender segregation.
Really? So when were laws passed that prohibited whites from marrying whites, blacks from marrying blacks, Chinese from marrying Chinese, disabled Americans from marrying disabled Americans, veterans from marrying veterans, Jews from marrying Jews and Christians from marrying Christians? Oh that's right, there are no such laws. Brian is merely lying again.

Brian_G wrote:
We oppose segregation even when voluntary.
And yet SCOTUS doesn't consider voluntary segregation illegal. After all in their ruling in Loving v. Virginia that stuck down anti-miscegenation laws, they didn't forbid whites from marrying whites or blacks from marrying blacks;, they ruled it unconstitutional for the government to mandate racial segregation in marriage.

If you oppose "voluntary" segregation, Brian, then you oppose the vast majority of marriages in the US in which the participants share at least one characteristic that is a protected class for purposes of anti-discrimination law.

Why do you oppose how so many American citizens exercise their fundamental right of marriage?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10153 Sep 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Nobody invited the KKK to their wedding but same sex marriage supporters are inviting bids from Christian wedding service providers and every news story claims they'll sue you if you decline the bid. The same sex marriage movement is more a racket than politics.
If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Why do you lie, Brian? Are there any reasons besides the fact you're a pathological liar?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10154 Sep 15, 2013
The 19th amendment nullified the gender discrepancy in the 14th amendment. You must ignore the 19th to still find any gender inequality in the 14th.

Both the 5th and 14th amendments require equal protection of the law for all persons.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10156 Sep 16, 2013
The 19th Amendment doesn't mention the 14th Amendment, it gives women the vote, not gender equality. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

September 9, 2013
'Gays' forced to serve Westboro Baptist haters

By J. Matt Barber

At least Oregon is applying its anti-discrimination laws evenhandedly. Interesting story out of Gresham: The Oregonian is reporting that Bruce Bottoms – a homosexual baker and owner of "Cakes By Cupcakes" – has been charged with anti-Christian discrimination by the Oregon Ministry of Human Rights (OMHR). Mr. Bottoms and his partner, Lance Limpkowski, recently declined to bake a cake for the notoriously anti-"gay" Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). As a result, they've been forced to shut down their business.

It seems that, in another tired attempt to be provocative, representatives from the attention-starved WBC demanded that Bottoms and Limpkowski bake a cake for a Westboro fundraiser with the group's trademark slogan, "God Hates Fags," emblazed in rainbow frosting across the top. Mr. Bottoms, who reportedly moonlights as a part-time blogger for the homosexual activist "Human Rights Campaign," was understandably appalled. He refused.

"Look, I'll serve anybody, Christian or otherwise," said Bottoms. "I just refuse to bake a cake that endorses an ideology that I find obscene. If Westboro came in and asked me to bake a birthday cake with the words 'Happy 120th, Papa Freddy,' it'd be my pleasure," he said. "I didn't decline to bake the cake because the customers defined themselves as 'Christian'; I refused because nobody should be forced to lend their talents to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that they find repugnant."....
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/1...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10157 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The 19th Amendment doesn't mention the 14th Amendment, it gives women the vote, not gender equality. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.
......
Please show the specific amendment or the section of the Constitution that excludes women from any of same protections/benefits/equality that men have under the law.

Then prove that this has anything to do with the fact that same sex marriage is still legal in MD.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10158 Sep 16, 2013
Section Two of the 14th Amendment explicitly cites different rights for males and females, just as it lists separate rights for citizens v noncitizens and adults v minors. The ERA wasn't ratified, there is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10159 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Section Two of the 14th Amendment explicitly cites different rights for males and females, just as it lists separate rights for citizens v noncitizens and adults v minors. The ERA wasn't ratified, there is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.
Brian, is section 2 of the 14th Amendment still active, or has it been superseded?

How dumb do you want to look?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10160 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The 19th Amendment doesn't mention the 14th Amendment, it gives women the vote, not gender equality. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.
September 9, 2013
'Gays' forced to serve Westboro Baptist haters
By J. Matt Barber
At least Oregon is applying its anti-discrimination laws evenhandedly. Interesting story out of Gresham: The Oregonian is reporting that Bruce Bottoms – a homosexual baker and owner of "Cakes By Cupcakes" – has been charged with anti-Christian discrimination by the Oregon Ministry of Human Rights (OMHR). Mr. Bottoms and his partner, Lance Limpkowski, recently declined to bake a cake for the notoriously anti-"gay" Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). As a result, they've been forced to shut down their business.
It seems that, in another tired attempt to be provocative, representatives from the attention-starved WBC demanded that Bottoms and Limpkowski bake a cake for a Westboro fundraiser with the group's trademark slogan, "God Hates Fags," emblazed in rainbow frosting across the top. Mr. Bottoms, who reportedly moonlights as a part-time blogger for the homosexual activist "Human Rights Campaign," was understandably appalled. He refused.
"Look, I'll serve anybody, Christian or otherwise," said Bottoms. "I just refuse to bake a cake that endorses an ideology that I find obscene. If Westboro came in and asked me to bake a birthday cake with the words 'Happy 120th, Papa Freddy,' it'd be my pleasure," he said. "I didn't decline to bake the cake because the customers defined themselves as 'Christian'; I refused because nobody should be forced to lend their talents to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that they find repugnant."....
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/1...
Once again, Brian fails to actually read the contents of his cited link. If he had perhaps he wouldn't have overlooked this"

"...the "Cakes By Cupcakes" incident didn't actually happen..."

Which means it was merely a hypothetical example.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10161 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Section Two of the 14th Amendment explicitly cites different rights for males and females, just as it lists separate rights for citizens v noncitizens and adults v minors.
Yet more proof of Brian's illiteracy. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment deals strictly with apportionment of representatives. It replaces the corresponding apportionment section of Article I Section 2 of the constitution which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. Amendment 14 Section 2 doesn't even list rights at all, much less differentiate between the rights of males vs. females, citizens vs. non citizens of adults vs. minors as Brian erroneously asserts. Instead, it reduces the apportionment of representatives to states that deny the right to vote to male citizens 21 years of age or older except in cases of "participation in rebellion, or other crime".

Here's the actual text for those literate enough to read and comprehend it"

"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."

link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...
Brian_G wrote:
The ERA wasn't ratified, there is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.
SCOTUS has ruled otherwise as sex is a quasi-suspect class subject to intermediate scrutiny for equal protection constitutional law cases.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10162 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, Brian fails to actually read the contents of his cited link. If he had perhaps he wouldn't have overlooked this"
"...the "Cakes By Cupcakes" incident didn't actually happen..."
Which means it was merely a hypothetical example.
Thank you for pointing out this is not true.

False information continues to be one of the best tools for those with no rational argument on the merits.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10164 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet more proof of Brian's illiteracy. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment deals strictly with apportionment of representatives. It replaces the corresponding apportionment section of Article I Section 2 of the constitution which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. Amendment 14 Section 2 doesn't even list rights at all, much less differentiate between the rights of males vs. females, citizens vs. non citizens of adults vs. minors as Brian erroneously asserts. Instead, it reduces the apportionment of representatives to states that deny the right to vote to male citizens 21 years of age or older except in cases of "participation in rebellion, or other crime".
Here's the actual text for those literate enough to read and comprehend it"
"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."
link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has ruled otherwise as sex is a quasi-suspect class subject to intermediate scrutiny for equal protection constitutional law cases.
Again, he demonstrates false information continues to be one of the best tools for those with no rational argument on the merits.

His excuses relies on the counting of male citizens who can vote, at a time women weren't allowed to vote. He ignores the male requirement for counting voters was rendered inoperative when the right to vote was recognized for women. He continues to deny the other constitutional requirements of equal protection for "all persons". It appears he continues to ignore women are persons under the constitution.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10165 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, he demonstrates false information continues to be one of the best tools for those with no rational argument on the merits.
His excuses relies on the counting of male citizens who can vote, at a time women weren't allowed to vote. He ignores the male requirement for counting voters was rendered inoperative when the right to vote was recognized for women. He continues to deny the other constitutional requirements of equal protection for "all persons". It appears he continues to ignore women are persons under the constitution.
Brian, unlike Pietro, has revealed no redeeming qualities in his posts in Topix; he's simple a waste of the planet's oxygen.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#10166 Sep 16, 2013
Carmiana wrote:
Any gay who would sue a Christian for not participating in same sex marriage ceremonies is going against the amendment that states that it is your freedom to openly practice your own religion.
Go get united by someone who is not Christian, like the justice of peace.
If Christians are being forced to participate in same sex ceremonies then Christians would not be allowed to freely practice their own religion. Most Christians don't believe that two people of the same gender should be together whether it be sexually or marriage, they believe that it should one man for one woman. So why should they be forced to break their beliefs.
What did Jesus have to say on the subject of same-sex marriage? That's right, nothing.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10167 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, unlike Pietro, has revealed no redeeming qualities in his posts in Topix; he's simple a waste of the planet's oxygen.
Some creative absurdities and insulting concepts, but no honest assessment of the facts, just the same old excuses over and over.

A major difference seems to be, I think P knows he is just arguing to be arguing and doesn't really have a case, while B seems to believe the irrational, unsupportable prejudice he promotes.
imom

Carol Stream, IL

#10168 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call people who break the law, Brian? Besides "Christian", that is?
White, Black, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc.? It is not just Christians who break the law. There are a lot of Christians who support Gay marriage, there are atheists who are against it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10169 Sep 16, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What did Jesus have to say on the subject of same-sex marriage? That's right, nothing.
Matthew 19 is often used as an excuse to assume Jesus only approved of one man, one woman relationships, but they fail to consider the first few verses in context of 1-12...

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


"According to Jesus, born eunuchs are exempt from the Adam and Eve style heterosexual marriage paradigm.

Eunuchs so born from their mother’s womb. These eunuchs, according to Jesus, were born that way. They did not make a personal choice to be eunuchs and they were not physically castrated by men. Some Christians believe these men were homosexual eunuchs." http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eun...
imom

Carol Stream, IL

#10170 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Men and women aren't the same; gender equality doesn't exist in the US Constitution. The ERA failed, the states didn't ratify because the majority don't want same sex marriage or a government with the power to ignore gender and treat citizens as if unisex.
It's perfectly constitutional to register 18 year old men for Selective Service but not 18 year old women. It's perfectly Constitutional for states to apply the standard of one man and one woman to marriage.
Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor. See the examples of Christians forced to participate in same sex wedding ceremonies because of PC hate laws.
Read the WHOLE 14th amendment. The only place where the word male is used is in refering to voting rights every where else the word is person. Unless you want to make the arguement that women are not persons you best admit the 14th amendment covers women.
577 T-Rex

Fargo, ND

#10171 Sep 16, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What did Jesus have to say on the subject of same-sex marriage? That's right, nothing.
He did not say anything about bestiality or incest either. What is your point? Homosexuality is justified because Jesus did not say anything about it? Do you have a point?

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) 6 min red and right 1,223,533
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 8 min red and right 180,134
News Smile. We love you. We hate you. At the same time (Jul '09) 36 min soon2Bminority 41
News John Kasich: WH run 'looks pretty good' 1 hr goonsquad 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Scrutiny 187,728
News Poll: Job approval for Congress at record low (Aug '11) 18 hr swedenforever 28
News Carter gets cold shoulder in Israel 22 hr Jeff Brightone 1
More from around the web