Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

[DNF]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
Can anyone help this fool?

DOMA allows SSM. Read the law. Then TRY to stop looking so ridiculous on these boards.

[DNF]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
Its a simple statement of fact. Straights can have children BY ACCIDENT, and gay couples NEVER CAN...or do you dispute this little sliver of reality?
So since a gay couple always CHOOSES to have a child, they can wait and CHOOSE at the right time...straight couples do not always have that luxury...
so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is being said?

Yes I do. I know several gay men who, as teens had sex with girls as a way to "cure" their same sex desires. Their children from those couplings were not planned. And an unplanned pregnancy is by definition an "accident" right?

As for straight couples not being able to choose when to have a child, you're just plain out of touch with reality.

so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is true!

[DNF]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
Its a simple statement of fact. Straights can have children BY ACCIDENT, and gay couples NEVER CAN...or do you dispute this little sliver of reality?
So since a gay couple always CHOOSES to have a child, they can wait and CHOOSE at the right time...straight couples do not always have that luxury...
so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is being said?

Someone please help this fool

[Jane Dough]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep mentioning my feelings, when my feelings are not a part of that ruling or how I do feel about it......but your feelings are very obvious and it is what you want to believe the ruling is implying.......but like I said, Ted Olson has stated many times that SCOTUS has ruled that Marriage is a Fundamental right.........I think he understand law better than you do!!!

yes, it has, as it has been linked to procreation in the case I already gave you...
and all others including Loving and Skinner...

U.S. Supreme Court

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL

434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Decided January 18, 1978

maybe you should READ IT before telling me I am wrong?

so, if you didn't even READ THE CASE, you are clearly not talking from a basis in fact....
so whats left?
YOUR FEELINGS...

your feelings and a dollar get you a coffee any size at McD's.

"The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

there is no other way to read these words. You are WRONG.

the quote explain why marriage IS fundamental...and its because it relates to the well established right to procreate...

[DNF]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
My marriage is accepted in all 50 states and hers is not. THAT IS A FACT.
What is the problem with CU's again?
Oh yeah,not equal since they are not recognized in all states...
so if Cu's are unequal for this same reason, the marriage is NOT EQUAL?
see how that works?
I can live married in NJ, RNL cannot...get it?

Oh yes I get it. The thing is you are perfectly happy knowing that a fellow citizen is being denied their Constitutional rights and I'm not.

Faux outrage? Check your mirror.

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>DOMA allows SSM. Read the law. Then TRY to stop looking so ridiculous on these boards.

then it will be easy for you to put up some support...
I'll wait...

[DNF]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
and then you bring up polygamy and they call it a RED HERRING...
so a marriage right currently denied is not relevant, but racial civil rights is a direct analogy?
I know why you play this way....

I know why I play this way too. I was raised in a Republican household!

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Yes I do. I know several gay men who, as teens had sex with girls as a way to "cure" their same sex desires. Their children from those couplings were not planned. And an unplanned pregnancy is by definition an "accident" right?
As for straight couples not being able to choose when to have a child, you're just plain out of touch with reality.
so how about you save your faux outrage until you grasp what is true!

WTF are you talking about?

So did the gay person have a baby by accident with another gay?

no, they had STRAIGHT SEX...which does lead to babies...just GAY SEX does not...

are you suggesting gays have STRAIGHT sex as part of their marriage?

[RnL2008]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Beautiful and touching post my friend. Glad you brought up the whole "lifestyle" B.S.
Is wanting to be married a "lifestyle"?
Is expecting our government and our fellow citizens to follow what it says in the U.S. Constitution under Amendments 9 and 14 a "lifestyle"?

Thank you for your comment......but it is simply amazing how some folks thing who we are is a "LIFESTYLE", but who they are is something much more!!!

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Someone please help this fool

where's your support?

go find some buddy...but its gonna take a while...

[DNF]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
I dunno, maybe loving who you want, living with who you want, boinking who you want...
all way ahead of A PIECE OF PAPER from city hall...
mere GOVT RECOGNITION which equates to MONEY...

So now you finally admit to what the real "sanctity" is all you folks keep whining about.

$$$$$$$$$$

Thanks.

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I pointed out that gays suffered the same types of abuse blacks did.

sure, when were gays SLAVES?
No wonder the group that supports you least is the blacks...

and I bet you are one that calls polygamy a red herring....denying a marriage right is relevant but discrimination is discrimination?
consistency is not even on your radar...

Even the courts don't put you anywhere near blacks as far as suspect classification..

even gender gets more scrutiny than gays...

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text> The thing is you are perfectly happy knowing that a fellow citizen is being denied their Constitutional rights and I'm not.

nope they are not.

and if they are, its the same as you with polygamy...

[DNF]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
are you REALLY suggesting no correlation in this sentence?
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
we protect marriage ONLY because we protect procreation.

no we protect marriage because that is how a family unit is legally formed. Try to keep up.

Procreation needs protection? Really? Since when?

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>So now you finally admit to what the real "sanctity" is all you folks keep whining about.
$$$$$$$$$$
Thanks.

yup , that's all you are after as you cry about love....

[Eriq Barrington]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I am really sick of you and people like you trying to make ME the bad guy when it comes to morals and responsibility.

Be quiet. I didn't even read the rest of that emotional tripe. Preach your dogma to someone who doesn't have a brain.

[DNF]

To Jane Dough:

You said marriage is needed to protect procreation.

OK so now tell us where unwed mothers come from.

[DaveinMass]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
then it will be easy for you to put up some support...
I'll wait...

DOMA was enacted in 1996.

Since then Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and the District of Columbia have legalalized same-sex civil marriages. DOMA has not nullified any of those marriages.

DOMA only allows the other states and federal government to treat these marriages as somehow different; to say these marriages with marriage licenses/certificates are valid while these other marriages with the exact same legal document are not. Currently the lower courts have found DOMA unconstitutional. SCOTUS has yet to take up the issue.

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

To Jane Dough:
You said marriage is needed to protect procreation.
OK so now tell us where unwed mothers come from.

this is what marriage is intended to encourage away from?

right?

criminal law is intended to protect us, why is there still murder?

And by the way, I didn't say it the SCOTUS did...

[Jane Dough]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>no we protect marriage because that is how a family unit is legally formed.

a family unit is more than the two spouses punk...
guess how we get more?
procreation...

adoption is a MINOR exception...