Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 Full story: The Skanner 9,656

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.

Full Story

Since: Mar 07

United States

#8098 Nov 14, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
I'm not anti-gay, I oppose the redefinition of marriage. I'm sorry you can't understand the difference.
Wanting to harm gay families, and their kids,is about as anti-gay as a person can get.

If I were to have the power to nullify all marriages for blue eyed people, would you consider my act to be harmful to them?

It what ways would such an act hurt the families involved?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8099 Nov 14, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Wanting to harm gay families, and their kids,is about as anti-gay as a person can get.
If I were to have the power to nullify all marriages for blue eyed people, would you consider my act to be harmful to them?
It what ways would such an act hurt the families involved?
If blue eyed marriages were offered but called blue partnerships, who gives a F$#%^&Ck?

your are focused on the name marriage so how about you accept that you gambled your family's rights just for the name...

so you opted to harm your family for your own obsession with sameness as opposed to your claimed mission of equality...

an reducing all opposition to you as hate is simplistic and factually wrong. Its the EXACT same as people saying all gays are sexual deviants...

don't forget, you currently have the right to live with, love, boink, adopt, etc...
its just some tax breaks and a NAME you seek...

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8100 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
If blue eyed marriages were offered but called blue partnerships, who gives a F$#%^&Ck?
your are focused on the name marriage so how about you accept that you gambled your family's rights just for the name...
so you opted to harm your family for your own obsession with sameness as opposed to your claimed mission of equality...
an reducing all opposition to you as hate is simplistic and factually wrong. Its the EXACT same as people saying all gays are sexual deviants...
don't forget, you currently have the right to live with, love, boink, adopt, etc...
its just some tax breaks and a NAME you seek...
Was it just a tax break and a NAME that you sought when you got married? If that's all it was, you could have married just about anyone, without regard for love or feelings.

What if the blue-eyed people voted to call their partnerships "marriage," but voted to call the brown-eyed peoples' marriages "Brown-eyed partnerships." Would that be fair.

YOU are the one hung up on the word "marriage." Marriage is two unrelated people who have chosen to be legally recognized as life partners. Period.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8101 Nov 14, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it just a tax break and a NAME that you sought when you got married? If that's all it was, you could have married just about anyone, without regard for love or feelings.
What if the blue-eyed people voted to call their partnerships "marriage," but voted to call the brown-eyed peoples' marriages "Brown-eyed partnerships." Would that be fair.
YOU are the one hung up on the word "marriage." Marriage is two unrelated people who have chosen to be legally recognized as life partners. Period.
If I got the rights, I wouldn't give a crud what it was CALLED...
I got married because I wanted to have legitimate children raised the most stable way...
so I ask you, if EVERYONE got a civil partnership equally, would you agree to that and let only the religious ceremonies use the name marriage?

as to YOUR definition of marriage:

why TWO? Why not 5?

why unrelated?(is it procreational concerns?)

why LIFE partners? it doesn't say commitment on any license...
AND many marriages are not life partners, so what makes you think that is relevant?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8102 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
If I got the rights, I wouldn't give a crud what it was CALLED...
I got married because I wanted to have legitimate children raised the most stable way...
so I ask you, if EVERYONE got a civil partnership equally, would you agree to that and let only the religious ceremonies use the name marriage?
as to YOUR definition of marriage:
why TWO? Why not 5?
why unrelated?(is it procreational concerns?)
why LIFE partners? it doesn't say commitment on any license...
AND many marriages are not life partners, so what makes you think that is relevant?
So why do you give a crud if it's called marriage if two gays or lesbians get married?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8103 Nov 14, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
So why do you give a crud if it's called marriage if two gays or lesbians get married?
I am asking if you would sacrifice the name for the rights...would you GIVE the name to the religious so that you could have the same legal institution as straights with the same name...just not marriage...

well?

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8104 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I am asking if you would sacrifice the name for the rights...would you GIVE the name to the religious so that you could have the same legal institution as straights with the same name...just not marriage...
well?
There is no need for that. For example, we have Catholic Marriage. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize Protestant Marriage. Religious institutions are free to discriminate any way they wish and define marriage on their own terms. They are not free to make their doctrine binding on the rest of us.

Get it?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8105 Nov 14, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
So why do you give a crud if it's called marriage if two gays or lesbians get married?
He cares because he lost in his own State and he feels impotent. He thinks religion owns the TradeMark on the word marriage and he HATES being wrong. Instead of admitting a mistake, he attempts to change the argument, thinking no one will notice.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8106 Nov 14, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no need for that. For example, we have Catholic Marriage. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize Protestant Marriage. Religious institutions are free to discriminate any way they wish and define marriage on their own terms. They are not free to make their doctrine binding on the rest of us.
Get it?
The question is, what makes Jane think he is the arbiter? We certainly don't have to compromise with him. He has no power. Besides, the States that have banned same sex marriage, have also banned civil unions. They are not interested in negotiation.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8107 Nov 14, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no need for that. For example, we have Catholic Marriage. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize Protestant Marriage. Religious institutions are free to discriminate any way they wish and define marriage on their own terms. They are not free to make their doctrine binding on the rest of us.
Get it?
yup, I get that, but how about you address MY point?

a "compromise " is giving up something and getting something.

I am only asking if a COMPROMISE was presented where you gave up the name marriage and got the rights, WOULD YOU TAKE IT?

get it YET?
I think you are saying no...and I find that very inneresting...
or is it that the "fundies" can't be allowed to get anything?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8108 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>He cares because he lost in his own State and he feels impotent. He thinks religion owns the TradeMark on the word marriage and he HATES being wrong. Instead of admitting a mistake, he attempts to change the argument, thinking no one will notice.
you should care because you lost your state...

would you accept full right in NJ in exchange for removing the name marriage from all people and letting the religious have it?
funny how you take this as me claiming a trademark?

I was only pitching a potential COMPROMISE...

Its great how you read every one of my posts and respond, but never to me...I think maybe you FEAR me...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8109 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is, what makes Jane think he is the arbiter? We certainly don't have to compromise with him. He has no power. Besides, the States that have banned same sex marriage, have also banned civil unions. They are not interested in negotiation.
the question is, why do you HATe arbitration so much?

Why this ALL OR NOTHING?

If BOTH SIDES compromise a bit, maybe we could get on to MORE IMPORTANT THINGS...

But I do find this anger over a pitched compromise to be funny and displays that a lot of you guys here are really just angry,
and the "rights" to marriage are really just the pawn...

apparently no one would take the rights if the religious got to have the name...
very inneresting indeed...

and thanks again for enabling me, you just cant resist can you?you have proven yourself to be very weak!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8110 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, I get that, but how about you address MY point?
a "compromise " is giving up something and getting something.
I am only asking if a COMPROMISE was presented where you gave up the name marriage and got the rights, WOULD YOU TAKE IT?
get it YET?
I think you are saying no...and I find that very inneresting...
or is it that the "fundies" can't be allowed to get anything?
Adopted by several states, this "compromise" may seem reasonable to those not affected. But in this "compromise", only the legal rights of gay people are compromised. They forfeit equality, while the straight majority lose nothing, and they would also lose no legal rights by granting full marriage equality.

The Supreme Court ruled on the matter of "separate but equal" in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education. The court recognized that "separate but equal" opportunities created a feeling of inferiority for the minorities being segregated, and that this feeling of segregation could cause permanent emotional injury.

The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117) Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118 In re Marriage Cases)

Additionally, Dr. Chris Beyrer, the founder and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights, said denying same sex couples the right to marry harms community health:``We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8111 Nov 14, 2012
delusion (d&#618;&#712;lu&# 720;&#658;&#601;n)

n
1. a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur
2. psychiatry illusion See also hallucination a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason
3. the act of deluding or state of being delude

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8112 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
the question is, why do you HATe arbitration so much?
Why this ALL OR NOTHING?
If BOTH SIDES compromise a bit, maybe we could get on to MORE IMPORTANT THINGS...
But I do find this anger over a pitched compromise to be funny and displays that a lot of you guys here are really just angry,
and the "rights" to marriage are really just the pawn...
apparently no one would take the rights if the religious got to have the name...
very inneresting indeed...
and thanks again for enabling me, you just cant resist can you?you have proven yourself to be very weak!
There is no reason to believe straight people would give up the word "marriage" in favor of "civil union" and have "marriage" as only a church blessing. Your assumption both sides would compromise has no support in what we have seen so far.

It also seems to ignore the fact that many churches accept marriage equality and marry same sex couples in their churches.

Further, it denies to straight non-believers the name recognized around the world that describes their relationship to another. Why should "marriage" be only allowed for religious groups. Let them come up with their own name, such as "covenant marriage" if they want to distinguish it from civil marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8113 Nov 14, 2012
Courts have also found other arrangements do not fulfill all of the rights of marriage, yet perpetrated prejudice as well as discrimination: "it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."

"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8114 Nov 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Adopted by several states, this "compromise" may seem reasonable to those not affected. But in this "compromise", only the legal rights of gay people are compromised. They forfeit equality, while the straight majority lose nothing, and they would also lose no legal rights by granting full marriage equality.
The Supreme Court ruled on the matter of "separate but equal" in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education. The court recognized that "separate but equal" opportunities created a feeling of inferiority for the minorities being segregated, and that this feeling of segregation could cause permanent emotional injury.
The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117) Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118 In re Marriage Cases)
Additionally, Dr. Chris Beyrer, the founder and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights, said denying same sex couples the right to marry harms community health:``We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement.
AGAIN, we ALL would have ONE institution...ONLY CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS would exist....no such thing as legal marriage....
only religious marriage...

SO...you would get ALL the rights...ALL the equality, and the religious get the bone of getting sole use of the name marriage...
think of it as a further separation of religion and state...
SO...the majority is giving up something, that we would all have the SAME institution...
SO how about it?
(I am actually blown away by the resistance to this idea)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8115 Nov 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no reason to believe straight people would give up the word "marriage" in favor of "civil union" and have "marriage" as only a church blessing. Your assumption both sides would compromise has no support in what we have seen so far.
It also seems to ignore the fact that many churches accept marriage equality and marry same sex couples in their churches.
Further, it denies to straight non-believers the name recognized around the world that describes their relationship to another. Why should "marriage" be only allowed for religious groups. Let them come up with their own name, such as "covenant marriage" if they want to distinguish it from civil marriage.
RIGHT. NO compromise...and on and on it goes...
why should THEY win?
right?

this was just an honest attempt at seeing what some of the REAL issues are...

are you really so hung up on a name that you would bet all the rights you claim is a travesty you now don't get just iover the name and so THEY don't get it?
(psst, THEY think the same way, but THEY already have the rights....so its a good trade)
By changing the LANGUAGE, and throwing a bone to the religious regarding marriage, maybe the true separation of church and state would be more apparent and zingo, the SUBSTANCE of what you claim you want, but not the name...
so, forget what you think THEY would say to this, what do YOU say?

again, if EVERYONE in the US had civil partnerships, other countries would pick up quick, I mean we still do STANDARDS weights and measures, lets not pretend this is a big deal...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8116 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
delusion (d&#618;&#712;lu&# 720;&#658;&#601;n)
n
1. a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur
2. psychiatry illusion See also hallucination a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason
3. the act of deluding or state of being delude
self diagnosing with the internet is dangerous...especially since you are delusional...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#8117 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN, we ALL would have ONE institution...ONLY CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS would exist....no such thing as legal marriage....
only religious marriage...
SO...you would get ALL the rights...ALL the equality, and the religious get the bone of getting sole use of the name marriage...
think of it as a further separation of religion and state...
SO...the majority is giving up something, that we would all have the SAME institution...
SO how about it?
(I am actually blown away by the resistance to this idea)
Then write it up and put it on your ballot.....see if the folks are interested in it!!!

Stop trying to get Gays and Lesbians to buy into it, but not straight folks.......either it works for all, or it doesn't work at all!!!

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
first lesbian crush 2 min haley 1
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 12 min KiMare 201,174
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 16 min hal 26,768
Critics Claim Religious Freedom Act Legalizes B... 48 min scs2011 13
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 51 min NorCal Native 20
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 53 min Respect71 5,658
Gay British musician Elton John marries partner... 55 min Curteese 2
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Gunther 68,523
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 2 hr eyeful 2,878
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 2 hr WeTheSheeple 5,039
More from around the web