Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

[Savant]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
That makes no sense whatsoever.

Is there ANYONE in Topix who's unaware that OhReally NEVEER makes sense? He's impervious to reason.
He has nothing to contribute.

[Brian_G]

EdmondWA wrote:

Sure, if you consider comparing gay relationships to pedophilia and incest an "argument" and not an "insult". Of course, THAT'S what's stupid.

I'm comparing the legal arguments for changing marriage laws, NOT the relationships. I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals and homosexuality, I've NEVER written that abut pedophilia.

.

EdmondWA wrote:

It absolutely would not. There is no justification for allowing predatory adults to sexually molest children, or to commit ANY crime. My standards are for consenting adults who can legally sign contracts.

Then your standards allow incest marriage. I'm arguing standards and justification, not comparing one group to another.

.

EdmondWA wrote:

You simply want to PRETEND that there's some justification for this crime hidden in marriage equality, so you can appear to defy equality on some other basis than obvious homophobia.

The 'right to marriage equality' is dangerous because Muslims would be able to claim a religious right to polygamy, incest couples would be allowed to use that right for incest marriage and pedophiles would do the same. You can't just create a new right, then pretend everyone against that is a bigot.

.

EdmondWA wrote:

Nonsense. Marriage makes two unrelated people into family. It makes them next-of-kin automatically, so that the protections of marriage can be applied, where they previously couldn't. No such need exists in people who are ALREADY family. The standards of marriage, both your standards AND mine, deal with the marriages of NON-family members.

Marriage does more than make two unrelated people a family, it provides a stable home for the children born of that heterosexual union.

.

EdmondWA wrote:

But this is just another false appeal, another attempt at slander, to tie marriage equality to something undesirable, so you can oppose them all together as a unit even though they're unrelated.

I don't slander my opponents, I've never insulted you or any homosexuals. I oppose slander; that's not civil discourse.

.

EdmondWA wrote:

You're damn right I'm not OK with swapping. This is a DISTORTION of marriage, a betrayal of the commitment that people make when they marry. Swapping was YOUR idea. And why? So that gay people COULD take advantage of the benefits of marriage, without actually PURSUING marriage to the person they love. But if you are trying to show SUPPORT for the needs of gay couples, by finding loophole-alternatives, then why not support our needs through honest means? If you're trying to HELP us meet our needs, you're doing it in a very funny way by trying to find ways to game the system.

E. is the one supporting radically changing the definition of marriage, not me. I've said nothing against anyone's private consensual sexual behavior, he has.

.

[Brian_G]

EdmondWA wrote:

There's equal protection under the law for all citizens in the Constitution. Everyone has the right to CHOOSE how they use their freedom, no matter how badly you might not like WHAT they choose.

An unelected judge imposed same sex marriage against the will of the people, that's not equal protection. They got a special right based on mascot victim status.

.

EdmondWA wrote:

Oh bull. Ok, you ARE stupid. No one is going to "change" to homosexual, and you people reveal your ignorance when you shiver in fear at this nonsense.
You guys always say you don't want the government to change how marriage is recognized, but I know this is a lie, because it's the SAME lie that has been told about EVERY pursuit of gay rights. From the very beginning, from our fight to simply exist in society, our fight to hold jobs without being fired, or to hold public housing without being evicted, or to be able to serve openly in the military, ALWAYS there is some push-back not to "change" how something is done, because the gays will destroy it, or something. And every time, such claims are proven wrong.
The tradition you all seek to preserve is the freedom to slander innocent people, and make them into social outsiders, for the shallowest of reasons. It's been a lot of fun to watch you haters dwindle into the minority, finally.

All the left has are insults, they can't debate the issues because facts aren't on their side. That's why they call us, haters, liars, stupid and ignorant.

They are very good at arguing against strawman arguments they've built, but not good at the issues. That's why most people oppose changing marriage laws.

Obama and Biden campaigned on marriage as one man and one woman in 2008. Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate. President Bill Clinton, keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" into law.

[Mona Lott]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>An unelected judge imposed same sex marriage against the will of the people, that's not equal protection. They got a special right based on mascot victim status.
.
<quoted text>All the left has are insults, they can't debate the issues because facts aren't on their side. That's why they call us, haters, liars, stupid and ignorant.
They are very good at arguing against strawman arguments they've built, but not good at the issues. That's why most people oppose changing marriage laws.
Obama and Biden campaigned on marriage as one man and one woman in 2008. Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate. President Bill Clinton, keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" into law.

Brian, Brian, Brian.......... The will of the people CANNOT override the Constitution. That's why we have judicial review... to overturn laws that only serve to take rights away. Checks and balances, dude. Is that so difficult for you to grasp? This is not secret information. You should have learned it in high school.

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.

Executive branch
legislative branch
judicial branch

That's the way our government works.

[EdmondWA]

Brian_G wrote:

I'm comparing the legal arguments for changing marriage laws, NOT the relationships. I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals and homosexuality, I've NEVER written that abut pedophilia.

But you write of a "fear" that pedophilial marriages will result from allowing same-sex partners to marry. This is no legal argument. That argument would need to start with changing the legal age of consent, not only sexually, but with regards to who can sign a contract. Not happening. Not related. Red herring.

Brian_G wrote:

Then your standards allow incest marriage. I'm arguing standards and justification, not comparing one group to another.

My standards for marriage are for unrelated persons. They have no need to establish the next-of-kin protections that marriage brings.

Besides, the CURRENT standards DO allow incestuous marriages ALREADY, in many states. New Jersey has NO incest laws for ANYONE over 18. Why are you fearing something that's already in place? Is our push for FUTURE same-sex marriage laws responsible for PAST incest laws?

Like not changing age of consent laws, we are also not seeking to change existing incest laws. Another red herring.

Brian_G wrote:

The 'right to marriage equality' is dangerous because Muslims would be able to claim a religious right to polygamy, incest couples would be allowed to use that right for incest marriage and pedophiles would do the same. You can't just create a new right, then pretend everyone against that is a bigot.

Be careul, you almost sound like you're advocating for religious freedom, so that people can follow the tenets of their religion freely. Like some states already allow for Jews, who do recognize some forms of incest.

But this isn't about setting rules on religious marriage, or the practice of any religious rituals. This is about CIVIL marriage laws.

And, the people who claim that legally bonding with the person we love is a "new right", are generally the same people who simply don't want us bonding at ALL, or doing ANYTHING that can be viewed as "positive" or "normative". When there's a repetitively consistent PATTERN of opposition to EVERY step we take, decade after decade, it becomes evident that bigotry plays a BIG part in opposition to same-sex marriage.

Brian_G wrote:

Marriage does more than make two unrelated people a family, it provides a stable home for the children born of that heterosexual union.

There's no guarantee of that, but when it IS true, it's just as true for famillies headed by same-sex couples. Many gay couples DO raise kids. Preventing same-sex marriage will NOT prevent same-sex families. It will simply PREVENT that stability which you so praise. It illegitimizes these families, stigmatizes them. NOT a great environment for those kids, let alone the adults who bear the same stigma.

Brian_G wrote:

I don't slander my opponents, I've never insulted you or any homosexuals. I oppose slander; that's not civil discourse.

Slander can be couched in friendly language. Slander is simply lies that defame. Insinuating that marriage-equality would open the door to abuses of marriage, or even the destruction of society, as many do, is slander, plain and simple.

Brian_G wrote:

E. is the one supporting radically changing the definition of marriage, not me. I've said nothing against anyone's private consensual sexual behavior, he has.

I'm not talking about simplistic sexual behavior, how shallow. I'm talking about the bonds of love and family, which are among the highest values any humans hold. There is no reason to drag the unrelated concepts of incest or polygamy into this. It's not "radical" to simply recognize that gay people, by necessity, will have same-sex spouses, and that they will not build their families in any other way. It's radical to seek to BLOCK this in other people's lives.

[EdmondWA]

Brian_G wrote:

An unelected judge imposed same sex marriage against the will of the people, that's not equal protection. They got a special right based on mascot victim status.

Falling in love and seeking to cement that commitment, and secure protections for your bond, should not be labeled a "special right". You have it for yourself and the person you love. Why is it "special" for me to want the same?

Like most who oppose our access to this identical right, you simply oppose us doing anything that might be seen as positive or normative. Whether or not this is your personal philosophy, you have allied yourself with that position. You strengthen that side by adding your voice.

But I find an "unelected" judge tp be FAR more trustworthy in handling judiciary matters, than the public at large is. That's WHY we have judges, to uphold justice when the majority won't. The majority CAN'T always be trusted to be just. Should we have a society WITHOUT judges? Or one in which judges simply always rule against gay people? When judges take this issue OUT of the hands of voters, that's your cue to understand that your input and interference is misplaced.

And I don't have any idea what's been "imposed" on you. If you've been forced to marry someone of your gender against your will, that would certainly be terrible, and should be rectified. But somehow, I don't think you suffer from any such imposition.

Brian_G wrote:

All the left has are insults, they can't debate the issues because facts aren't on their side. That's why they call us, haters, liars, stupid and ignorant.
They are very good at arguing against strawman arguments they've built, but not good at the issues. That's why most people oppose changing marriage laws.
Obama and Biden campaigned on marriage as one man and one woman in 2008. Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate. President Bill Clinton, keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" into law.

And look where we are, after all these baby steps. I don't know what OTHER party or position would have gotten us this far. I don't need a history lesson. People's position on this issue can "evolve". But the "left" is certainly faster at it than the "right".

[WasteWater]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>An unelected judge imposed same sex marriage against the will of the people, that's not equal protection. They got a special right based on mascot victim status.
.
<quoted text>All the left has are insults, they can't debate the issues because facts aren't on their side. That's why they call us, haters, liars, stupid and ignorant.
They are very good at arguing against strawman arguments they've built, but not good at the issues. That's why most people oppose changing marriage laws.
Obama and Biden campaigned on marriage as one man and one woman in 2008. Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate. President Bill Clinton, keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" into law.

It was a lawful process. Hate our system of government much?

The rest is a nice rant.

You MAD bro?

[WasteWater]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Brian, Brian, Brian.......... The will of the people CANNOT override the Constitution. That's why we have judicial review... to overturn laws that only serve to take rights away. Checks and balances, dude. Is that so difficult for you to grasp? This is not secret information. You should have learned it in high school.
The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem. A separation of powers has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber.
Executive branch
legislative branch
judicial branch
That's the way our government works.

Of course!!

[TheTroll Stopper]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>An unelected judge yap yap yap blah blah blah...

Puh-leeze, enough of that beyond-tired rightarded "unelected" meme. Sorry you don't like our system of checks and balances.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I'm comparing the legal arguments for changing marriage laws, NOT the relationships. I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals and homosexuality, I've NEVER written that abut pedophilia.

Why bother with such an obvious lie? Every time you say gay marriage will harm civilization, you are saying there is something wrong with homosexuals.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Then your standards allow incest marriage. I'm arguing standards and justification, not comparing one group to another.
.
<quoted text>The 'right to marriage equality' is dangerous because Muslims would be able to claim a religious right to polygamy, incest couples would be allowed to use that right for incest marriage and pedophiles would do the same.

There you go mentioning pedophilia, again...
Why lie?

Brian_G wrote:

You can't just create a new right, then pretend everyone against that is a bigot.
<quoted text>Marriage does more than make two unrelated people a family, it provides a stable home for the children born of that heterosexual union.

You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry, dummy. Why bring it up? And many heterosexual couples adopt. Do you know what that word "adopt" means?

.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I don't slander my opponents, I've never insulted you or any homosexuals. I oppose slander; that's not civil discourse.

You lying b!tch! Every time you insult all gay people, you are slandering all your gay opponents.
At least I admit I insult people.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>E. is the one supporting radically changing the definition of marriage, not me. I've said nothing against anyone's private consensual sexual behavior, he has.
.

You don't have a single good argument against gay marriage.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>An unelected judge imposed same sex marriage against the will of the people, that's not equal protection. They got a special right based on mascot victim status.
.

Liar. Nobody has to marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to. Nothing was imposed. And, it's not a special right, straight people can marry someone of the same sex.
You homophobes love to try to have it both ways. You'll claim gay people have equal rights because they can marry someone of the same sex, yet by some magic, it becomes a special right when both gays and straights can marry someone of the same sex.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>All the left has are insults, they can't debate the issues because facts aren't on their side. That's why they call us, haters, liars, stupid and ignorant.

You forgot idiots who want to impose their Bronze Age superstitions on rational people.

Brian_G wrote:

They are very good at arguing against strawman arguments they've built, but not good at the issues. That's why most people oppose changing marriage laws.
Obama and Biden campaigned on marriage as one man and one woman in 2008. Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate. President Bill Clinton, keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" into law.

Zzzz...

[Brian_G]

Protect marriage, No on 6!

Maryland's courts have found that defining marriage as one man and one woman doesn't violate the State's Constitution. There is no gender equality right in Maryland or the US Constitution.

[JBH]

=======Full story: The Guardian
Libya promises to seek out killers who used riot as cover for ambassador's killing, but Barack Obama comes under increasing pressure to take action A US "film-maker" linked to an anti-Islamic movie that has sparked deadly riots across the Middle East, claiming the lives of the US ambassador to Libya as well as a number of others, has been ...(more)========

__________

HERE YOU GO.

OBAMA IS THE DRAGGING down AT ALL TIMES.

----------

==========

For Obama, the Libya, Egypt, Yemen violences and beyond, are alike and equal to, and worse than the Jimmy Carter's Iran hostages-affair.

How does that come about?

What action if ANY THAT of Obama is going to take?

----------

[Brian_G]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

... Nothing was imposed...

The court's ruling imposed same sex marriage law on the state. Walker writes as conclusion: " [California's] constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis" and the Remedies section directs: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples"

Reject court imposed same sex marriage law!

[Brian_G]

EdmondWA wrote:

Falling in love and seeking to cement that commitment, and secure protections for your bond, should not be labeled a "special right". You have it for yourself and the person you love. Why is it "special" for me to want the same?...

You would call it a special right if it applied to incestuous couples, polygamists and pedophiles; the same principle applies to same sex marriage. Every society has defined marriage as male/female. There is no copy of a same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.

[DNF]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
What about them??

Don't their Constitutional guarantees to ALL citizens apply to all citizens in relation to DOMA?

[DNF]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>There's no law against a lesbian marrying a gay; that's a gay marriage and I find nothing wrong with it. If they find a like minded couple and swap, that's none of my business.
Changing marriage laws is EVERYONE'S business; there is no gender equality right in the Constitution and making marriage 'unisex' is a bad idea for your civilization.

But There IS a gender equality right in the Constitution.

Amendment 19 and as a result of that there are in fact 3 since Amendments 9 and 14 now apply regardless of the sex of the citizen. And under Amendment 9 gender MUST NOW be included.

Here's one other example "BrianG" of the similarity of the black civil rights movement and ours.

They were told > "Can't you wait, there's a war on. We have so many other important issues to deal with. Be patient."

I've been hearing the same thing for almost 10 years now.

[DNF]

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Who cares what you think...

SINEAD O'CONNOR / queen of denmark

(you know you're going to listen just to find out what everyone else is listening to)

[Brian_G]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

Why bother with such an obvious lie? Every time you say gay marriage will harm civilization, you are saying there is something wrong with homosexuals.

Rose is using sophistry, "a specious argument used for deceiv[e]." There's nothing wrong with masturbation, but solo marriage would harm civilization. There's nothing wrong with group sex, whatever floats your boat, but I oppose polygamy because that harms civilization too.

.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

...You lying b!tch! Every time you insult all gay people, you are slandering all your gay opponents. At least I admit I insult people.

I've never insulted anyone except in retaliation, and even then I use insults sparingly. This is where we differ.

I know Rose is sincere, she wants to change marriage because of her sympathy for homosexuals. Life isn't fair, homosexual unions are barren; tough love means keeping marriage as one man and one woman.

.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

You don't have a single good argument against gay marriage.

I've offered over a hundred arguments on these pages, I've read thousands of arguments here. Rose refuses to debate the arguments because it's so much easier to dismiss political opponents as bigots.

The left isn't self aware, basis their arguments on emotion instead of reason and resorts to defaming opponents to win. They are very good at defamation; I give them that.

[Brian_G]

DNF wrote:

But There IS a gender equality right in the Constitution. Amendment 19 and as a result of that there are in fact 3 since Amendments 9 and 14 now apply regardless of the sex of the citizen. And under Amendment 9 gender MUST NOW be included.
Here's one other example "BrianG" of the similarity of the black civil rights movement and ours. They were told > "Can't you wait, there's a war on. We have so many other important issues to deal with. Be patient." I've been hearing the same thing for almost 10 years now.

The Nineteenth Amendment gives men and women the same right to vote, it doesn't give gender equality rights. Here's the text, read for yourself:

"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."

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification.